ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of digital interventions in supporting young caregivers' mental health, well‐being, and caregiving experiences, and to assess implementation factors including adherence and acceptability. Method We systematically searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and Scopus) and grey literature sources from inception to March 2025, identifying studies evaluating digital interventions for caregivers aged 25 years or younger. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Due to substantial heterogeneity, narrative synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta‐analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines. Results From 752 records, six studies met inclusion criteria, comprising three randomized controlled trials, one feasibility study, and two development/adaptation studies. Interventions included web‐based platforms, mobile applications, audio‐conferencing systems, and e‐learning platforms. Digital tools showed limited effectiveness for mental health outcomes but demonstrated promise for quality‐of‐life improvements, with one trial showing statistically significant results (Wilks' λ = 0.95, F (4, 418) = 2.74, p = 0.03). Adherence varied dramatically between self‐guided platforms (26%) and structured programs (93%). All RCTs demonstrated a high risk of bias. Discussion These findings reveal a ‘digital paradox’ whereby the theoretical advantages of accessibility failed to translate into engagement without human facilitation. Digital interventions for young caregivers require hybrid models combining technological convenience with relational support, structured flexibility, and continuous co‐design with young caregivers to optimize engagement and effectiveness. The limited number of included studies and uniformly high risk of bias across RCTs underscore the need for pragmatic trials with robust implementation evaluations. PROSPERO Registration CRD42024604175.
Shankar et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: