4.6 Review

The impact of caregiving for children with chronic conditions on the HPA axis: A scoping review

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2023.101062

Keywords

Caregiving; Stress; HPA axis; Pediatric illness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the high burden and unique stressors of caregiving for a child with a congenital, chromosomal, or genetic disorder, there has been limited research on the physiological impact of this type of caregiving. A review of 15 studies found inconsistent links between caregiving and the regulation or dysregulation of the HPA axis, possibly due to variations in disease contexts, study designs, and biomarker measurement. Future research should focus on standardizing measurement and study designs, increasing participant diversity, and exploring moderators of the links between caregiving and the HPA axis.
Caregiving has been robustly linked to caregiver health through the dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in the context of caregiving for an adult with a chronic illness. However, little research examines the physiological impact of caregiving for a child with a chronic illness despite high burden and unique stressors. In this review, we explore the links of caregiving for a child with a congenital, chromosomal, or genetic disorder to the regulation or dysregulation of the HPA axis. A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science and 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, there were inconsistent links of caregiving to HPA axis functioning, perhaps due to the heterogeneity across disease contexts, study designs, and biomarker measurement. Future research should standardize measurement and study designs, increase participant diversity, and examine moderators of the links of caregiving to the HPA axis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available