Mortality, Morbidity and Health-Related Outcomes in Informal Caregivers Compared to Non-Caregivers: A Systematic Review

A systematic overview of mental and physical disorders of informal caregivers based on population-based studies with good methodological quality is lacking. Therefore, our aim was to systematically summarize mortality, incidence, and prevalence estimates of chronic diseases in informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. Following PRISMA recommendations, we searched major healthcare databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE and Web of Science) systematically for relevant studies published in the last 10 years (without language restrictions) (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020200314). We included only observational cross-sectional and cohort studies with low risk of bias (risk scores 0–2 out of max 8) that reported the prevalence, incidence, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), mean- or sum-scores for health-related outcomes in informal caregivers and non-caregivers. For a thorough methodological quality assessment, we used a validated checklist. The synthesis of the results was conducted by grouping outcomes. We included 22 studies, which came predominately from the USA and Europe. Informal caregivers had a significantly lower mortality than non-caregivers. Regarding chronic morbidity outcomes, the results from a large longitudinal German health-insurance evaluation showed increased and statistically significant incidences of severe stress, adjustment disorders, depression, diseases of the spine and pain conditions among informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. In cross-sectional evaluations, informal caregiving seemed to be associated with a higher occurrence of depression and of anxiety (ranging from 4 to 51% and 2 to 38%, respectively), pain, hypertension, diabetes and reduced quality of life. Results from our systematic review suggest that informal caregiving may be associated with several mental and physical disorders. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution, as the cross-sectional studies cannot determine temporal relationships. The lower mortality rates compared to non-caregivers may be due to a healthy-carer bias in longitudinal observational studies; however, these and other potential benefits of informal caregiving deserve further attention by researchers.

Understanding and Supporting Informal Cancer Caregivers

Informal caregivers invest a significant amount of time and effort to provide cancer patients with physical, psychological, information, and social support. These challenging tasks can harm their own health and well-being, while a series of social-ecological factors may also influence the outcomes of cancer caregiving. Several instruments have been developed to help clinicians and researchers understand the multi-dimensional needs and concerns of caregivers. A growing body of evidence indicates that supportive interventions including psychoeducation, skills training, and therapeutic counseling can help improve the burden, information needs, coping strategies, physical functioning, psychological well-being, and quality of life of caregivers. However, there is difficulty in translating research evidence into practice. For instance, some supportive interventions tested in clinical trial settings are regarded as inconsistent with the actual needs of caregivers. Other significant considerations are the lack of well-trained interdisciplinary teams for supportive care provision and insufficient funding. Future research should include indicators that can attract decision-makers and funders, such as improving the efficient utilization of health care services and satisfaction of caregivers. It is also important for researchers to work closely with key stakeholders, to facilitate evidence dissemination and implementation, to benefit caregivers and the patient.

Health-Related Quality of Life: A Comparative Analysis of Caregivers of People With Dementia, Cancer, COPD/Emphysema, and Diabetes and Noncaregivers, 2015-2018 BRFSS

BACKGROUND

Many informal caregivers experience significant caregiving burden and report worsening health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Caregiver HRQoL may vary by disease context, but this has rarely been studied.

PURPOSE

Informed by the Model of Carer Stress and Burden, we compared HRQoL outcomes of prevalent groups of caregivers of people with chronic illness (i.e., dementia, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]/emphysema, and diabetes) and noncaregivers and examined whether caregiving intensity (e.g., duration and hours) was associated with caregiver HRQoL.

METHODS

Using 2015-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, we identified caregivers of people with dementia (n = 4,513), cancer (n = 3,701), COPD/emphysema (n = 1,718), and diabetes (n = 2,504) and noncaregivers (n = 176,749). Regression analyses were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

Caregiver groups showed small, nonsignificant differences in HRQoL outcomes. Consistent with theory, all caregiver groups reported more mentally unhealthy days than noncaregivers (RRs = 1.29-1.61, ps < .001). Caregivers of people with cancer and COPD/emphysema reported more physically unhealthy days than noncaregivers (RRs = 1.17-1.24, ps < .01), and caregivers of people with diabetes reported a similar pattern (RR = 1.24, p = .01). However, general health and days of interference of poor health did not differ between caregivers and noncaregivers. Across caregiver groups, most caregiving intensity variables were unrelated to HRQoL outcomes; only greater caregiving hours were associated with more mentally unhealthy days (RR = 1.13, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that HRQoL decrements associated with caregiving do not vary substantially across chronic illness contexts and are largely unrelated to the perceived intensity of the caregiving. Findings support the development and implementation of strategies to optimize caregiver health across illness contexts.

Family reported outcomes, an unmet need in the management of a patient's disease: appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND

A person's chronic health condition or disability can have a huge impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the whole family, but this important impact is often ignored. This literature review aims to understand the impact of patients' disease on family members across all medical specialities, and appraise existing generic and disease-specific family quality of life (QoL) measures.

METHODS

The databases Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, ASSIA, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for original articles in English measuring the impact of health conditions on patients' family members/partner using a valid instrument.

RESULTS

Of 114 articles screened, 86 met the inclusion criteria. They explored the impact of a relative's disease on 14,661 family members, mostly 'parents' or 'mothers', using 50 different instruments across 18 specialities including neurology, oncology and dermatology, in 33 countries including the USA, China and Australia. These studies revealed a huge impact of patients' illness on family members. An appraisal of family QoL instruments identified 48 instruments, 42 disease/speciality specific and six generic measures. Five of the six generics are aimed at carers of children, people with disability or restricted to chronic disease. The only generic instrument that measures the impact of any condition on family members across all specialities is the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16). Although most instruments demonstrated good reliability and validity, only 11 reported responsiveness and only one reported the minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Family members' QoL is greatly impacted by a relative's condition. To support family members, there is a need for a generic tool that offers flexibility and brevity for use in clinical settings across all areas of medicine. FROM-16 could be the tool of choice, provided its robustness is demonstrated with further validation of its psychometric properties.

The Religious Meaning System and Resilience in Spouse Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Moderated Mediation Model of Hope and Affect

The character of the relationship between religiosity and resilience depends to a large extent on mediation and moderation mechanisms which rely on cognitive and emotional processes. Research conducted within hope theory and the broaden and build theory indicates that hope and affect can mediate and moderate this relationship. The present study explored whether the relationship of the religious meaning system with resilience in spouse caregivers of cancer patients can be mediated by hope and simultaneously moderated by positive and negative affect. A total of 241 spouse caregivers completed a set of questionnaires. The results revealed that hope mediated the relationship between the religious meaning system and resilience. Furthermore, positive affect but not negative affect moderated the indirect effect of the religious meaning system to resilience through hope.