The mental and physical health of young carers: a systematic review

Lacey, Rebecca; Xue, Baowen; McMunn, Anne

doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(22)00161-x

Cited by 32 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The quality of included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [ 36 , 37 ]. Based on the precedent of Lacey et al [ 19 ], we modified the NOS for cohort studies to factor in non-response rates, distinguish between longitudinal and cross-sectional cohort studies, and to assess statistical analysis. Described in detail in S2 File , in evaluating study quality (or risk of bias), stars were awarded where merited across ten criteria: four selection criteria, two confounding criteria, and four outcome criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Ervin,

Fleitas Alfonzo,

Taouk

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed additional and specific challenges on the lives and wellbeing of informal unpaid carers. Addressing an important gap in the existing literature, this systematic review (prospectively registered with PROSPERO CRD42022376012) synthesises and evaluates the quantitative evidence examining the association between unpaid caregiving and mental health (compared to non-caring), during the pandemic. Five databases were searched (Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science) from Jan 1, 2020, to March 1, 2023. Population-based, peer-reviewed quantitative studies using any observational design were included, with screening, data extraction and quality assessment (amended NOS) independently conducted by two reviewers. Of the 3,073 records screened, 20 eligible studies (113,151 participants) were included. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. Narrative synthesis was complemented by Effect-direction and Albatross plots (given significant between-study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis). Results indicate that the mental health of informal carers, already poorer pre-COVID compared to non-caregivers, was disproportionally impacted as a result of the pandemic and its associated public health containment measures. This review highlights the vulnerability of this group and should motivate political will and commensurate policies to ensure unpaid caregivers are better supported now, in the medium term, and crucially if, and when, another global public health emergency emerges.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Ervin,

Fleitas Alfonzo,

Taouk

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…National and international studies have found a lower quality of life and less social participation among YCs compared to their non-caregiving peers [ 1 , 3 ]. Many YCs remain invisible and without support [ 4 , 5 , 6 ], and they experience short- and longer-term risks in various areas of life, such as disadvantages for their own health and psychosocial well-being [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Get-togethers: Guided Peer-Support Groups for Young Carers

Schellenberg,

Visscher,

Leu

et al. 2024

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address Young Carers’ (YCs) needs for space and opportunities to reflect and exchange, a guided peer-support programme, the “Get-togethers”, was developed in collaboration with YC in Switzerland in 2018. In order to evaluate if the Get-togethers were able to meet their originally set goals of (1) strengthening support among YCs, (2) promoting their life skills, (3) strengthening their social network and (4) promoting the inclusion and participation of YCs, participants of the Get-togethers were asked to complete a short questionnaire about their participation in and experiences with the Get-togethers. We also analysed the standard documentation of 17 Get-togethers held between May 2021 and September 2023. Overall, the Get-togethers were rated positively in almost all areas of the survey and the documentation, indicating that the four originally set objectives of the Get-togethers were (at least largely) achieved. The Get-togethers covered a large part of the needs of YCs, such as emotional support and opportunities to relax and exchange with people in a similar situation, yet they largely failed to reach minor YCs and male YCs. Further support programmes should be developed to address the different needs of different groups of YCs.

show abstract

“…It has been argued that considering when in the lifecourse individuals caregiving roles are taken up is central to examining its different experiences and effects (Hamilton & Cass, 2017) and consequently we cannot assume that caregiving in young and older adulthood have equivalent effects on social outcomes. The provision of informal care in young adulthood, a period in which care provision is less normative (Hamilton & Cass, 2017), has thus far been associated with a range of negative outcomes for the caregiver, including poorer mental and physical health (Lacey et al, 2022; van der Werf et al, 2022), lower levels of wellbeing (Haugland et al, 2020, 2022), impacts on work and education (Becker & Sempik, 2019), and less participation in social and leisure activities (Haugland et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequalities in associations between young adult caregiving and social relationships: Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study

Lacey

Gessa

Xue

et al. 2023

Journal of Adolescence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionYoung adult caregivers (aged 16–29 years) are an important but underrecognized group of informal caregivers. There is some evidence suggesting that young adult caregivers have fewer social relationships. However, this research has been largely cross‐sectional in design or restricted to caregivers, providing no comparison with noncaregivers. Further, there is little evidence on whether and to what extent there are inequalities in associations between young adult caregiving and social relationships by gender, age, caregiving intensity, or household income.MethodsUsing five waves of data on 3‐4000 young adults aged 16–29 from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, we investigated associations between becoming a young adult caregiver and subsequent social relationships (number of close friends and participation in organized social activities) in the short‐term (1–2 years after caregiving initiation) and longer‐term (4–5 years later). We also assessed differences by gender, age, household income, and caregiving intensity.ResultsOverall, those who became young adult caregivers, and particularly those providing 5+ h/week, reported fewer friends in the short‐ but not longer‐term. No associations were observed between young adult caregiving and participation in organized social activities. Also, there was no evidence of differences by gender, age, income, or caregiving hours.ConclusionsBecoming a young adult caregiver is associated with a reduction in number of close friends, particularly in the short‐term. Given the importance of practical and emotional support provided by friends, the early identification of young adult caregivers and greater population awareness of caring in young adulthood may help to mitigate the effects on social relationships.

show abstract

The mental and physical health of young carers: a systematic review

Cited by 32 publications

References 29 publications

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Get-togethers: Guided Peer-Support Groups for Young Carers

Inequalities in associations between young adult caregiving and social relationships: Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About