4.4 Review

Intensity of care and perceived burden among informal caregivers to persons with chronic medical conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 44, Issue 21, Pages 6230-6246

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1966675

Keywords

Systematic review; meta-analysis; chronic disease; informal caregivers; perceived burden

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Further studies on caregiver burden are needed to improve sampling techniques, reporting procedures, and develop standard outcomes which include measurement of caregiving intensity.
Purpose Informal caregivers provide ongoing assistance to a loved one with a health condition. No studies have compared caregiving intensity and perception of burden across chronic medical conditions. Materials and methods Databases were searched from inception through 11 September 2020 to identify studies that included the Level of Care Index or the Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI) among caregivers for people with chronic diseases. Pooled mean ZBI scores and 95% confidence intervals by medical condition were calculated using a random effects model and heterogeneity with I-2. Results Ninety-seven included articles reported on 98 unique samples across 21 chronic diseases. No study used the Level of Care Index. Among 12 disease groups with more than one study, heterogeneity was too high (I-2 range: 0-99.6%, >= 76.5% in 11 groups) to confidently estimate burden. The percent of studies rated high risk of bias ranged from 0% to 98%, but all external validity items were rated as high-risk in >50% of studies. Conclusions Findings highlight the need for studies on caregiver burden to improve sampling techniques; better report sampling procedures and caregiver and care recipient characteristics; and develop a standard set of outcomes, including a measure of caregiving intensity. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42017080962

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available