Isabel Mosquera1,2, Itziar Vergara1,3,4,5, Isabel Larrañaga4,5,6, Mónica Machón7,8,9,10, María del Río11,12, Carlos Calderón1,4,13. 1. Unidad de Investigación de Atención Primaria-OSIs Gipuzkoa, Osakidetza, San Sebastián, Spain. 2. Programa de Doctorado en Salud Pública, Universidad del País Vasco, Leioa, Spain. 3. Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas-REDISSEC, San Sebastián, Spain. 4. Centro de Investigación en Cronicidad, KRONIKGUNE, Bilbao, Spain. 5. Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Biodonostia, San Sebastián, Spain. 6. Departamento de Salud, Delegación Territorial de Gipuzkoa, Gobierno Vasco, San Sebastián, Spain. 7. Unidad de Investigación de Atención Primaria-OSIs Gipuzkoa, Osakidetza, San Sebastián, Spain. monica.machonsobrado@osakidetza.eus. 8. Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas-REDISSEC, San Sebastián, Spain. monica.machonsobrado@osakidetza.eus. 9. Centro de Investigación en Cronicidad, KRONIKGUNE, Bilbao, Spain. monica.machonsobrado@osakidetza.eus. 10. Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Biodonostia, San Sebastián, Spain. monica.machonsobrado@osakidetza.eus. 11. Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, Spain. 12. Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria (ibs.Granada), Granada, Spain. 13. Centro de salud de Alza , OSI Donostialdea, Osakidetza, San Sebastián, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To classify and identify the main characteristics of the tools used in practice to assess the impact of elderly caregiving on the informal carers' life. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed searching in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBECS, LILACS, SiiS, SSCI and Cochrane Library from 2009 to 2013 in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, and in reference lists of included papers. RESULTS: The review included 79 studies, among them several in languages other than English. Their inclusion increased the variety of identified tools to measure this impact (n = 93) and allowed a wider analysis of their geographical use. While confirming their overlapping nature, instruments were classified according to the degree of integration of dimensions they evaluated and their specificity to the caregiving process: caregiver burden (n = 20), quality of life and well-being (n = 11), management and coping (n = 21), emotional and mental health (n = 29), psychosocial impact (n = 10), physical health and healthy habits (n = 2), and other measures. A high use in practice of tools not validated yet and not caregiver-specific was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The great variety and characteristics of instruments identified in this review confirm the complexity and multidimensionality of the effects of elderly caregiving on the informal carer's life and explain the difficulties to assess these effects in practice. According to the classification provided, caregiver burden and emotional and mental health are the most evaluated dimensions. However, further work is required to develop integrated and caregiving focused procedures that can appraise this complexity across different countries and cultures.
PURPOSE: To classify and identify the main characteristics of the tools used in practice to assess the impact of elderly caregiving on the informal carers' life. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed searching in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBECS, LILACS, SiiS, SSCI and Cochrane Library from 2009 to 2013 in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, and in reference lists of included papers. RESULTS: The review included 79 studies, among them several in languages other than English. Their inclusion increased the variety of identified tools to measure this impact (n = 93) and allowed a wider analysis of their geographical use. While confirming their overlapping nature, instruments were classified according to the degree of integration of dimensions they evaluated and their specificity to the caregiving process: caregiver burden (n = 20), quality of life and well-being (n = 11), management and coping (n = 21), emotional and mental health (n = 29), psychosocial impact (n = 10), physical health and healthy habits (n = 2), and other measures. A high use in practice of tools not validated yet and not caregiver-specific was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The great variety and characteristics of instruments identified in this review confirm the complexity and multidimensionality of the effects of elderly caregiving on the informal carer's life and explain the difficulties to assess these effects in practice. According to the classification provided, caregiver burden and emotional and mental health are the most evaluated dimensions. However, further work is required to develop integrated and caregiving focused procedures that can appraise this complexity across different countries and cultures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Caregivers; Elderly; Health; Quality of Life; Tool
Authors: Carlos Chiatti; Mirko Di Rosa; Maria Gabriella Melchiorre; Lamberto Manzoli; Joseph M Rimland; Giovanni Lamura Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: K L Davis; D B Marin; R Kane; D Patrick; E R Peskind; M A Raskind; K L Puder Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: María Del Río Lozano; María Del Mar García-Calvente; Jesús Calle-Romero; Mónica Machón-Sobrado; Isabel Larrañaga-Padilla Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Raquel S D Betini; John P Hirdes; Nancy Curtin-Telegdi; Lisa Gammage; Jennifer Vansickle; Jeff Poss; George Heckman Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Juan Oliva-Moreno; Luz María Peña-Longobardo; Leticia García-Mochón; María Del Río Lozano; Isabel Mosquera Metcalfe; María Del Mar García-Calvente Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wagahta Semere; Andrew D Althouse; Ann-Marie Rosland; Douglas White; Robert Arnold; Edward Chu; Thomas J Smith; Yael Schenker Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 3.929