Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Importance: To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based interventions to prevent chronic emotional distress (ie, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress PTS) in critical care survivors and their informal caregivers. Objective: To determine the feasibility and preliminary effect of the novel dyadic resiliency intervention Recovering Together (RT) on reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTS among hospitalized patients and their informal caregivers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blind, pilot randomized clinical trial of RT vs an educational control was conducted among 58 dyads in which either the survivor or caregiver endorsed clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTS. The study was conducted in the neuroscience intensive care unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. Data were collected from September 2019 to March 2020. Interventions: Both RT and control programs had 6 sessions (2 at bedside and 4 via live video after discharge), and both survivor and caregiver participated together. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and intervention delivery, credibility, and satisfaction. The secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety (measured by the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale), PTS (measured by the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version), and intervention targets (ie, mindfulness, measured by the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised; coping, measured by the Measure of Current Status-Part A; and dyadic interpersonal interactions, measured by the Dyadic Relationship Scale). Main outcomes and targets were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: The 58 dyads were randomized to RT (29 dyads 50.0%; survivors: mean SD age, 49.3 16.7 years; 9 31.0% women; caregivers: mean SD age, 52.4 14.3 years; 22 75.9% women) or control (29 dyads 50.0%; survivors: mean SD age, 50.3 16.4 years; 12 41.3% women; caregivers, mean SD age, 52.1 14.9, 17 58.6% women). Feasibility (recruitment 76%, randomization 100%, and data collection 83%-100%), adherence (86%), fidelity (100%; κ = 0.98), satisfaction (RT: 57 of 58 98% with scores >6; control: 58 of 58 100% with scores >6), credibility (RT: 47 of 58 81% with scores >6; control: 46 of 58 80% with scores >6), and expectancy (RT: 49 of 58 85% with scores >13.5; 51 of 58 87% with scores >13.5) exceeded benchmarks set a priori. Participation in RT was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement between baseline and postintervention in symptoms of depression (among survivors: -4.0 vs -0.6; difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.6 to -1.3; P = .002; among caregivers: -3.8 vs 0.6; difference, -4.5; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.3; P < .001), anxiety (among survivors: -6.0 vs 0.3; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -8.8 to -3.8; P < .001; among caregivers: -5.0 vs -0.9; difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.5, P = .002), and PTS (among survivors: -11.3 vs 1.0; difference, -12.3; 95% CI, -18.1 to -6.5, P < .001; among caregivers, -11.4 vs 5.0; difference, -16.4, 95% CI, -21.8 to -10.9; P < .001). Improvements sustained through the 12-week follow-up visit. We also observed RT-dependent improvement in dyadic interpersonal interactions for survivors (0.2 vs -0.2; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this pilot randomized clinical trial, RT was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing chronic emotional distress in dyads of survivors of the neuroscience intensive care unit and their informal caregivers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694678.
Vranceanu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.