Back

Group programmes to improve the skills, confidence and wellbeing of caregivers of children with neurodisability: a systematic review of effects

Prest, K.; Barnicot, K.; Drew, S.; Hurt, C.; Nicklin, D.; Harden, A.; Heys, M.

2026-02-12 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.02.11.26346104 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCaregiver skills training programmes are well-researched in the fields of autism and intellectual disability, but children with motor disorders such as cerebral palsy remain underrepresented despite their high prevalence. These caregivers face unique challenges, and group programmes may provide family-centred care through information provision, problem-solving and peer support. MethodsSystematic searches of five databases (CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and ERIC) were conducted for interventional studies of group programmes aiming to improve the skills, confidence and wellbeing of caregivers of children with neurodisability focusing on motor disorders. Data were extracted on study and intervention characteristics and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed, effect sizes calculated, and results summarised descriptively using forest plots. ResultsOf 6093 studies identified, 21 studies met inclusion criteria (nine randomised-controlled trials, two quasi-experimental and ten pre-post designs). Most reported on programmes developed in resource-constrained settings and addressed caregiver skills, coping strategies, or health-promoting behaviours. Outcomes were grouped according to caregiver wellbeing, caregiver skills and confidence, and social support and family functioning. Child outcomes were reported separately. Most caregiver outcomes showed positive effects, though most studies had high risk of bias due to self-reported outcomes and lack of blinding of intervention allocation and outcome measurement. DiscussionGroup-based training programmes show promise for improving caregiver skills and wellbeing. Clinicians and stakeholders in high-income countries may learn from these innovations in low-resource settings. Future research should strengthen protocol reporting, address attrition, control for confounding factors, and establish a core set of caregiver-reported outcomes to better capture programme impact. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42024595002

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
18.5%
2
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.1%
5
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
7
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
8
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
9
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
10
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.5%
13
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
16
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
17
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%