Cargando…

Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review

Background: Several empirical studies have shown an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. Nevertheless, a systematic review is lacking synthesizing studies which have investigated these aforementioned associations. Therefore, our purpose was to give a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hajek, André, Kretzler, Benedikt, König, Hans-Helmut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8618455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34831857
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212101
_version_ 1784604751886811136
author Hajek, André
Kretzler, Benedikt
König, Hans-Helmut
author_facet Hajek, André
Kretzler, Benedikt
König, Hans-Helmut
author_sort Hajek, André
collection PubMed
description Background: Several empirical studies have shown an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. Nevertheless, a systematic review is lacking synthesizing studies which have investigated these aforementioned associations. Therefore, our purpose was to give an overview of the existing evidence from observational studies. Materials and Methods: Three electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched in June 2021. Observational studies investigating the association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation were included. In contrast, studies examining grandchild care or private care for chronically ill children were excluded. Data extractions covered study design, assessment of informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation, the characteristics of the sample, the analytical approach and key findings. Study quality was assessed based on the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Each step (study selection, data extraction and evaluation of study quality) was conducted by two reviewers. Results: In sum, twelve studies were included in our review (seven cross-sectional studies and five longitudinal studies)—all included studies were either from North America or Europe. The studies mainly showed an association between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. The overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusion: Our systematic review mainly identified associations between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. This is of great importance in assisting informal caregivers in avoiding loneliness, since it is associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality. Moreover, high loneliness levels of informal caregivers may have adverse consequences for informal care recipients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8618455
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86184552021-11-27 Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review Hajek, André Kretzler, Benedikt König, Hans-Helmut Int J Environ Res Public Health Systematic Review Background: Several empirical studies have shown an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. Nevertheless, a systematic review is lacking synthesizing studies which have investigated these aforementioned associations. Therefore, our purpose was to give an overview of the existing evidence from observational studies. Materials and Methods: Three electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched in June 2021. Observational studies investigating the association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation were included. In contrast, studies examining grandchild care or private care for chronically ill children were excluded. Data extractions covered study design, assessment of informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation, the characteristics of the sample, the analytical approach and key findings. Study quality was assessed based on the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Each step (study selection, data extraction and evaluation of study quality) was conducted by two reviewers. Results: In sum, twelve studies were included in our review (seven cross-sectional studies and five longitudinal studies)—all included studies were either from North America or Europe. The studies mainly showed an association between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. The overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusion: Our systematic review mainly identified associations between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. This is of great importance in assisting informal caregivers in avoiding loneliness, since it is associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality. Moreover, high loneliness levels of informal caregivers may have adverse consequences for informal care recipients. MDPI 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8618455/ /pubmed/34831857 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212101 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Hajek, André
Kretzler, Benedikt
König, Hans-Helmut
Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title_full Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title_short Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
title_sort informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8618455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34831857
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212101
work_keys_str_mv AT hajekandre informalcaregivinglonelinessandsocialisolationasystematicreview
AT kretzlerbenedikt informalcaregivinglonelinessandsocialisolationasystematicreview
AT konighanshelmut informalcaregivinglonelinessandsocialisolationasystematicreview