0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Longitudinal association between informal unpaid caregiving and mental health amongst working age adults in high-income OECD countries: A systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Informal unpaid caregivers provide most of the world's care needs, experiencing numerous health and wealth penalties as a result. As the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, informal care is highly gendered. Longitudinal evidence is needed to assess the causal effect of caregiving on mental health. This review addresses a gap by summarising and appraising the longitudinal evidence examining the association between unpaid caregiving and mental health among working age adults in high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and examining gender differences.

          Methods

          Six databases were searched (Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Econlit) from Jan 1, 2000 to April 1, 2022. Population-based, peer-reviewed quantitative studies using any observational design were included. Population of interest was working age adults. Exposure was any unpaid caregiving, and studies must have had a non-caregiving comparator for inclusion. Mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, psychological distress/wellbeing) were measurable by validated self-report tools or professional diagnosis. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment (ROBINS-E) were conducted by two reviewers. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022312401).

          Findings

          Of the 4536 records screened; 13 eligible studies (133,426 participants) were included. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. Significant between-study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, so albatross and effect-direction plots complement the narrative synthesis. Results indicate a negative association between informal unpaid care and mental health in adults of working age. Importantly, all included studies were longitudinal in design. Where studies were stratified by gender, caregiving had a consistently negative impact on the mental health of women. Few studies examined men but revealed a negative effect where an association was found.

          Interpretation

          Our review highlights the need to mitigate the mental health risks of caregiving in working age adults. Whilst men need to be included in further scholarship, reducing the disproportionate caregiving load on women is a crucial requirement for policy development.

          Funding

          Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Targeted Research Support Grant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization.

              The widely-used Kessler K6 non-specific distress scale screens for severe mental illness defined as a K6 score ≥ 13, estimated to afflict about 6% of US adults. The K6, as currently used, fails to capture individuals struggling with more moderate mental distress that nonetheless warrants mental health intervention. The current study determined a cutoff criterion on the K6 scale indicative of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and assessed the validity of this criterion by comparing participants with identified moderate and severe mental distress on relevant clinical, impairment, and risk behavior measures. Data were analyzed from 50,880 adult participants in the 2007 California Health Interview Survey. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified K6 ≥ 5 as the optimal lower threshold cut-point indicative of moderate mental distress. Based on the K6, 8.6% of California adults had serious mental distress and another 27.9% had moderate mental distress. Correlates of moderate and serious mental distress were similar. Respondents with moderate mental distress had rates of mental health care utilization, impairment, substance use and other risks lower than respondents with serious mental distress and greater than respondents with none/low mental distress. The findings support expanded use and analysis of the K6 scale in quantifying and examining correlates of mental distress at a moderate, yet still clinically relevant, level. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                01 November 2022
                November 2022
                01 November 2022
                : 53
                : 101711
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
                [b ]Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 4, 207, Bouverie Street, Victoria 3010, Australia. jennifer.ervin@ 123456unimelb.edu.au
                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00441-2 101711
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101711
                9637877
                36353526
                6a209799-93a2-49d5-b48e-40d4e5a9e5e9
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 15 August 2022
                : 4 October 2022
                : 5 October 2022
                Categories
                Articles

                informal unpaid care,informal caregiving,mental health,gender,systematic review,longitudinal,hic,oecd

                Comments

                Comment on this article