Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol View ORCID Profile Stella Arakelyan , View ORCID Profile Michaela Gilarova , Mozhu Ding , Atul Jaiswal , Atul Anand , Karin Modig , Maria Kristiansen , Daniela Lillekroken , Susan D Shenkin , View ORCID Profile Jill Manthorpe , View ORCID Profile Bruce Guthrie doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336138 Stella Arakelyan 1 Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Stella Arakelyan For correspondence: Stella.arakelyan{at}ed.ac.uk Michaela Gilarova 1 Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Michaela Gilarova Mozhu Ding 2 Unit of Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm, Sweden Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Atul Jaiswal 3 TM , Ottawa, Canada 4 Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Canada Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Atul Anand 5 Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Chancellor’s Building, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Karin Modig 2 Unit of Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm, Sweden Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Maria Kristiansen 6 Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Daniela Lillekroken 7 Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University , Oslo, Norway Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Susan D Shenkin 1 Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK 8 Ageing and Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jill Manthorpe 9 NIHR Policy Research Unit in Health and Social Care Workforce , King’s College London, London, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Jill Manthorpe Bruce Guthrie 1 Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Bruce Guthrie Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Aim To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of dyadic (pair-based) interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) and/or frailty (aged ≥55 years) and their informal carers. Methods The review protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, with the protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251144604). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for experimental and quasi-experimental studies examining the effectiveness of community-based dyadic interventions for adults with MLTC (≥2 long-term conditions within an individual) and/or frailty (aged ≥55 years) and their informal carers (spouses/partners, other family members or relatives) published since 2010 and up to September 2025. Dyadic interventions will be defined as pair-based interventions that directly involve informal carers and care recipient adults with MLTC and/or frailty using various techniques targeted at carers, care recipients, or both to change outcomes for at least one member of the carer/care recipient pair (or dyad). Database searches will be followed by a manual search of the reference lists of included studies and lists of papers citing included studies in order to identify additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts against the selection criteria and independently screen full texts using Covidence software. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool for experimental studies and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for quasi-experimental studies. Synthesis of evidence will be quantitative where possible, following Cochrane recommendations for quantitative Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis, and narrative otherwise. Conclusion The findings will address the evidence gap in dyadic implementation research in later life and help inform clinical decision-making, policy development and program planning for adults with MLTC and/or frailty and their carers, particularly in primary care and other community health settings. Introduction The prevalence and complexity of multiple long-term conditions (MLTC or multimorbidity) are increasing rapidly, especially among older people and those who are socio-economically deprived [ 1 - 4 ]. MLTC challenge health and social care systems as their presence is associated with increased dependency and complexity of care needs, higher health and care use and costs, poorer quality of life and mental health problems [ 5 , 6 ]. MLTC and frailty (decline in physiological reserves, contributing to increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes) are interrelated, exacerbating the onset and severity of the other [ 7 , 8 ]. Over 16% of people with MLTC are frail, and over 70% of people who are frail live with MLTC [ 7 ]. Most people with MLTC and frailty live in community settings, where many rely on informal care and support from immediate family, relatives and friends to maximise quality of life and maintain independence. In 2022-23, an estimated 8% of the United Kingdom (UK) population (5.2 million people) were providing informal care, with a third of them aged ≥55 years [ 9 ]. Such care, which commonly includes support with activities of daily living, e.g., eating, dressing, grooming, bathing, shopping, attending appointments, managing and administering medications, often stems from love, respect, or duty, bringing positive benefits such as strengthened bonds and personal fulfilment. However, it frequently comes at a heavy cost to carers, especially to older spouse or partner carers who often live with long-term conditions themselves and have unmet support needs [ 10 ]. Care is a dynamic and mostly reciprocal relationship where the care recipient and informal carer both influence and are reliant on one another in different support domains [ 11 - 13 ]. Dyadic theoretical models, such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model [ 14 ] and the Theory of Dyadic Illness Management [ 15 ], provide a theoretical basis for understanding the reciprocal dynamics within care relationships by positing that an individual’s traits and behaviours not only shape their own experiences and outcomes but also have effects on their care partner and vice versa. This bidirectional and mutual influence underpins the rationale for dyadic or pair-based interventions, actively engaging carers and care recipients in interventions simultaneously to improve outcomes for one or both members of the dyad [ 16 ]. Given that poor experience of providing care to people with MLTC and/or frailty may negatively affect care experiences and outcomes for both informal carers and care recipient adults with MLTC and/or frailty, there is a potential for dyad-tailored support interventions to achieve more meaningful and sustained improvements in dyadic outcomes. Previous reviews examining the effects of dyadic interventions on health outcomes have focused predominantly on informal carers and care recipient adults with a single disease (e.g., cancer, dementia) [ 17 , 18 ] or a mode of delivery of dyadic interventions (e.g., eHealth) [ 19 ]. The evidence of the benefits of dyadic interventions in the context of MLTC and frailty is lacking. The aim of this review is to systematically synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with MLTC and/or frailty (aged ≥55 years) and their informal carers. Specific research questions sought by the review are: What is the effectiveness of community dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults MLTC and/or frailty aged ≥55 years and their co-resident older informal carers (spouses or partners) aged ≥55 years? What is the effectiveness of community dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults MLTC and/or frailty (aged ≥55 years) and their informal carers (adult family members, relatives, or friends)? Materials and Methods The review protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [ 20 ]. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251144604). Search strategy Systematic searches will be performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for peer-reviewed literature published since 2010 and up to September 2025, with no language restrictions applied. The date limit is used to capture relatively recent and relevant intervention studies. The search strategy will apply subject terms and keywords relating to the target population and intervention, with the finalised search strategy being consulted with an information specialist and tailored to each database. A search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid) is provided (S1 Table). In addition, we will manually search the reference lists of included studies and lists of papers citing included studies for other eligible studies. Population We will include studies focusing on community-dwelling adults aged ≥55 years (or where the mean age ≥60 years) with MLTC and/or frailty and their informal carers (co-resident spouses/partners or other family members, relatives, friends). MLTC will be operationalised based on the NICE guideline definition as the presence of ≥2 long-term health conditions in an individual [ 21 ]. Long-term conditions will be defined based on the World Health Organisation’s definition as persistent health problems needing ongoing management over a period of years or decades [ 22 ]. Frailty will be defined using either the frailty phenotype, the cumulative deficits model, or a validated frailty index or measurement tool. Community-dwelling will be defined as living independently at home (including in assisted living, extra-care and sheltered housing but excluding care/nursing home residents), regardless of the need for care assistance. An informal carer will be defined as an adult (a spouse, partner or other family member, relative or friend aged) who lives with or without a long-term condition(s) and provides support with activities of daily living (eating, dressing, grooming, bathing, shopping, cooking, attending appointments, managing and administering medications, managing finances) to an adult with MLTC and/or frailty aged ≥55 years. We will exclude studies where care recipient adults with MLTC and/or frailty receive end-of-life or palliative care, receive support from paid carers only, have a single long-term condition or symptom, or those focusing on care recipient adults who all have a particular long-term condition or symptom (such as cancer, stroke, or dementia) with other comorbidities. Intervention We will include studies that evaluate the effectiveness of dyadic interventions in the community setting (delivered at home, in other community settings, in primary care, or in ambulatory care/outpatient settings). There is no universally accepted and consistently applied definition of dyadic interventions. We will define dyadic interventions as pair-based interventions that directly involve informal carers and care recipient adults with MLTC and/or frailty using various techniques targeted at carers, care recipients or both to change outcomes for at least one member of the carer/care recipient pair (or dyad) [ 16 ]. Comparators We will consider reviews reporting on any type of comparator intervention, including context-specific standard, or usual care. Types of studies We will include experimental and quasi-experimental study designs, such as randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series study designs. These are strong study designs acceptable for the evaluation of the effectiveness of health interventions by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group criteria [ 23 ]. We will exclude studies reporting on observational study designs (e.g., case series, individual case reports, descriptive cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies) and pharmacological studies. We will also exclude conference proceedings, abstracts, any type of reviews, and protocols. Outcomes We will include studies reporting on quality of life (QoL), health and social care usage, including primary care usage (≥1 during follow up), emergency care attendance (≥1 during follow-up), hospital admission (≥1 during follow-up), social care usage (≥1 during follow up), caregiving burden, social participation or exclusion, and mortality measured by validated instruments or any clinically meaningful metrics. QoL could be measured by validated self-reported outcome instruments, such as the Short Form (SF)-12, SF-36, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L. Caregiving or carer burden could be measured using tools capturing different aspects of carers’ experience, such as emotional, physical, social, and financial impacts, as covered in the Zarit Burden Interview, Caregiver Strain Index, Caregiver Reaction Assessment, Relative Stress Scale. Social participation or exclusion will be measured using self-reported frequency, quality, and diversity of involvement in social activities and community life instruments, such as Social Participation Questionnaire (SPQ), Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI), UCLA Loneliness Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS)-6. This list is not exhaustive, and other validated measures of outcomes will also be considered. The review selection criteria are detailed in Table 1 . View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1. Study selection criteria Data extraction We will import retrieved records to EndNote v20.3 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) for de-duplication. RIS files will be transported to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) for data management, with initial title/abstract screening and further full-text screening done by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies between reviewers will be resolved by discussion and, if necessary, the involvement of a third reviewer. We will extract data using a structured data extraction tool on (1) study characteristics (title, first author, country, year of publication, objective); (2) included populations (age, gender, other socio-demographic details, number and type of conditions, definitions, and measures used); (3) search strategy; (4) dyadic interventions (types of interventions, country in which interventions were tested, intervention components, who delivered, who was the target(s), type of controls, total sample sizes); (5) setting; (6) health and care outcomes (measures used, measured for whom) and results. Authors of original studies will be contacted for incomplete or missing data. Quality appraisal Methodological quality will be assessed by two reviewers independently using tools tailored to study design. For RCTs, we will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool [ 24 ], which evaluates potential sources of bias across five domains: bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Each domain will be rated as having a ‘low risk of bias’, ‘some concerns’, or a ‘high risk of bias’, with an overall risk of bias based on the judgments across all five domains. For quasi-experimental studies, we will use the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [ 25 ]. This tool assesses bias across seven domains, including confounding, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of reported results. Each domain will be rated on a spectrum from low to critical risk, with the overall risk of bias determined by the highest risk level across all domains. Discrepancies between reviewers’ ratings will be resolved by discussion, and if necessary, authors of original studies will be contacted for additional information. Analysis If appropriate, meta-analyses will be conducted by pooling risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., hospital admission, mortality), or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes (quality of life, social participation or exclusion). Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I 2 statistic and the omnibus homogeneity test (Q) using metrics: 0%-40% (low heterogeneity); 30%-60% (moderate heterogeneity); 50%-90% (substantial heterogeneity); and 75%-100% (considerable heterogeneity). A fixed-effects model will be used if the heterogeneity is low; otherwise, we will use a random-effects model and explore potential causes of heterogeneity using subgroup analysis. For RCTs with multiple periods of follow-up, the aim will be to meta-analyse at different time-points (e.g., end of the intervention period and varying durations of follow-up after the end of active intervention), depending on what is possible with reported data. If possible, subgroup analyses will be conducted according to dyadic intervention types (e.g., educational, psychosocial, digital) and outcomes. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. For data where meta-analysis is not appropriate, synthesis will be quantitative where possible, following Cochrane recommendations for quantitative Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis [ 26 ], and narrative otherwise. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for the assessment of the overall quality of evidence. The status and timeline of the study As of 22 September 2025, systematic searches across six databases have been completed. Screening is in progress and is expected to conclude by the end of October 2025. Quality appraisal and data extraction are anticipated to be completed by December 2025, with the full systematic review and reporting of results expected within the following 12 months. Discussion The growing prevalence and complexity of MLTC present an urgent challenge for health and social care systems worldwide. While care and support provided to community-dwelling adults with MLTC and/or frailty is often delivered within reciprocal dyadic relationships, existing evidence has largely overlooked this relational dimension, focusing instead on single-disease contexts or specific modes of intervention delivery. To achieve more meaningful and sustained improvements in dyadic outcomes, it is important to provide a systematic synthesis of the effects of various dyadic interventions targeting adults with MLTC and/or frailty and their informal carers, and map the features of community settings in which these interventions were developed and evaluated in relation to various outcomes. By applying a dyadic lens, this systematic review will address this evidence gap and advance understanding of how community-based care and support services could be re-designed, tailored and implemented to improve outcomes for both adults MLTC and/or frailty and their informal carers, supporting them to live well and longer in their communities. Findings will have implications for research, policy, and practice. For researchers, it will identify gaps in dyadic implementation research in later life, such as the types of interventions that have been most rigorously evaluated, outcomes frequently measured and those overlooked, and the methodological limitations that require further exploration. For service providers and policymakers, it will offer evidence-based insights into the type of community-based dyadic interventions that could reduce unmet support needs and improve care experience and outcomes for people with MLTC and/or frailty and their carers, advance dyadic intervention development and dissemination. Conclusion Review findings will address the evidence gap in dyadic implementation research in later life and help inform clinical decision-making, policy development and program planning for adults with MLTC and/or frailty and their informal carers, particularly in primary care and other community health settings. Data Availability As this manuscript is a systematic review protocol, there are no primary data associated with it. Accordingly, a data availability statement cannot be provided, as no datasets have yet been generated. Funding This work is funded by the Legal & General Group (research grant to establish the independent Advanced Care Research Centre at the University of Edinburgh) and Vivensa Foundation (ECRF24\4). The funders have no role in the conduct of this review, interpretation or the decision to submit for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Legal & General or Vivensa Foundation. Ethics and dissemination The ethical approval for systematic reviews and related protocols is not required. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant academic conferences. Supporting information S1 Table. Search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid interface) References 1. ↵ Palmer K , CarfÌ A , Angioletti C , Di Paola A , Navickas R , Dambrauskas L , et al. A methodological approach for implementing an Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model: Results from the preimplementation stage of Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS . Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2019 ; 16 ( 24 ): 5044 . OpenUrl PubMed 2. Ho IS-S , Azcoaga-Lorenzo A , Akbari A , Davies J , Hodgins P , Khunti K , et al. Variation in the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of 193 international studies . BMJ Open . 2022 ; 12 ( 4 ): e057017 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 3. Kingston A , Robinson L , Booth H , Knapp M , Jagger C , project M. Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) model . Age Ageing . 2018 ; 47 ( 3 ): 374 – 80 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. ↵ Barnett K , Mercer SW , Norbury M , Watt G , Wyke S , Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study . Lancet . 2012 ; 380 ( 9836 ): 37 – 43 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 5. ↵ Soley-Bori M , Ashworth M , Bisquera A , Dodhia H , Lynch R , Wang Y , et al. Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare costs and utilisation: a systematic review of the UK literature . Br J Gen Pract . 2021 ; 71 ( 702 ): e39 – e46 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 6. ↵ Skou ST , Mair FS , Fortin M , Guthrie B , Nunes BP , Miranda JJ , et al. Multimorbidity . Nat Rev Dis Primers . 2022 ; 8 ( 1 ): 48 . OpenUrl PubMed 7. ↵ Vetrano DL , Palmer K , Marengoni A , Marzetti E , Lattanzio F , Roller-Wirnsberger R , et al. Frailty and multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis . J Gerontol A . 2019 ; 74 ( 5 ): 659 – 66 . OpenUrl 8. ↵ Villacampa-Fernandez P , Navarro-Pardo E , Tarin JJ , Cano A. Frailty and multimorbidity: two related yet different concepts . Maturitas . 2017 ; 95 : 31 – 5 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 9. ↵ GOV.UK . Family Resources Survey: Financial year 2022 to 2023 2023 . Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2022-to-2023 [Accessed 10 April 2025 ]. 10. ↵ Price ML , Surr CA , Gough B , Ashley L. Experiences and support needs of informal caregivers of people with multimorbidity: a scoping literature review . Psycho Health . 2020 ; 35 ( 1 ): 36 – 69 . OpenUrl 11. ↵ Lingler JH , Sherwood PR , Crighton MH , Song M-K , Happ MB . Conceptual challenges in the study of caregiver-care recipient relationships . Nurs Res . 2008 ; 57 ( 5 ): 367 – 72 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 12. Kelley HH . Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence . A Wiley-Interscience Publication . 1978 . 13. ↵ Monin JK , Levy B , Doyle M , Schulz R , Kershaw T. The impact of both spousal caregivers’ and care recipients’ health on relationship satisfaction in the Caregiver Health Effects Study . J Health Psycho . 2019 ; 24 ( 12 ): 1744 – 55 . OpenUrl 14. ↵ Kenny DA . Reflections on the actor–partner interdependence model . Pers Relatsh . 2018 ; 25 ( 2 ): 160 – 70 . OpenUrl 15. ↵ Lyons KS , Lee CS . The theory of dyadic illness management . J Fam Nurs . 2018 ; 24 ( 1 ): 8 – 28 . OpenUrl PubMed 16. ↵ Di Maio S , Villinger K , Knoll N , Scholz U , Stadler G , Gawrilow C , et al. Compendium of dyadic intervention techniques (DITs) to change health behaviours: a systematic review . Health Psycho Rev . 2024 ; 18 ( 3 ): 538 – 73 . OpenUrl 17. ↵ Pang X , Jin Y , Wang H. Effectiveness and moderators of cancer patient-caregiver dyad interventions in improving psychological distress: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Asia-Pac J Onco Nurs . 2022 ; 9 ( 8 ): 100104 . OpenUrl 18. ↵ Poon E. A systematic review and meta-analysis of dyadic psychological interventions for BPSD, quality of life and/or caregiver burden in dementia or MCI . Clin Gerontol . 2022 ; 45 ( 4 ): 777 – 97 . OpenUrl PubMed 19. ↵ Shaffer KM , Tigershtrom A , Badr H , Benvengo S , Hernandez M , Ritterband LM . Dyadic psychosocial eHealth interventions: systematic scoping review . J Med Internet Res . 2020 ; 22 ( 3 ): e15509 . OpenUrl PubMed 20. ↵ Page MJ , McKenzie JE , Bossuyt PM , Boutron I , Hoffmann TC , Mulrow CD , et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ . 2021 ; 372 . 21. ↵ NICE . Multimorbidity: assessment, prioritisation and management of care for people with commonly occurring multimorbidity . 2016 . Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56 [Accessed 12 April 2025 ]. 22. ↵ WHO . WHO clinical consortium on healthy ageing: topic focus: frailty and intrinsic capacity: report of consortium meeting 2016 . Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272437 [Accessed 10 April 2025 ]. 23. ↵ Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care . Available from: https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Resources-for-authors2017/what_study_designs_should_be_included_in_an_epoc_review.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2025 ]. 24. ↵ Sterne JA , Savović J , Page MJ Elbers RG , Blencowe NS , Boutron I , Cates CJ , Cheng HY , Corbett MS , Eldridge SM , Emberson JR et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials . BMJ . 2019 ; 366 . 25. ↵ Sterne JA , Hernán MA , Reeves BC , Savović J , Berkman ND , Viswanathan M , et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions . BMJ . 2016 ; 355 . 26. ↵ Chandler J , Cumpston M , Li T , Page MJ , Welch V. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . Hoboken : Wiley . 2019 . View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted September 22, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol Stella Arakelyan , Michaela Gilarova , Mozhu Ding , Atul Jaiswal , Atul Anand , Karin Modig , Maria Kristiansen , Daniela Lillekroken , Susan D Shenkin , Jill Manthorpe , Bruce Guthrie medRxiv 2025.09.22.25336138; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336138 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Effectiveness of dyadic interventions in improving outcomes for adults with multiple long-term conditions and/or frailty and their informal carers: A systematic review protocol Stella Arakelyan , Michaela Gilarova , Mozhu Ding , Atul Jaiswal , Atul Anand , Karin Modig , Maria Kristiansen , Daniela Lillekroken , Susan D Shenkin , Jill Manthorpe , Bruce Guthrie medRxiv 2025.09.22.25336138; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336138 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Geriatric Medicine Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (568) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (297) Cardiovascular Medicine (4420) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (443) Dermatology (381) Emergency Medicine (606) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1507) Epidemiology (15212) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1120) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6580) Geriatric Medicine (667) Health Economics (996) Health Informatics (4518) Health Policy (1366) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1611) Hematology (538) HIV/AIDS (1264) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15906) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (620) Medical Ethics (144) Nephrology (667) Neurology (6579) Nursing (345) Nutrition (998) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1140) Occupational and Environmental Health (956) Oncology (3323) Ophthalmology (970) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (435) Palliative Medicine (129) Pathology (663) Pediatrics (1689) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (691) Primary Care Research (710) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5428) Public and Global Health (9211) Radiology and Imaging (2192) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1368) Respiratory Medicine (1194) Rheumatology (593) Sexual and Reproductive Health (709) Sports Medicine (529) Surgery (709) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (288) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fef77698f48593a',t:'MTc3OTMyMzM2Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();