IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i17-18p3201-3221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Shanshan Wang
  • Daphne Sze Ki Cheung
  • Angela Yee Man Leung
  • Patricia M. Davidson

Abstract

Aims and objectives To identify factors associated with the caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers. Background Caregiving appraisal, the cognitive evaluation of the caregiving situation, is an essential factor in determining positive or negative caregiving outcomes. Identifying factors associated with appraisal is fundamental for designing effective health promotion strategies. Design A systematic review. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang Database were searched for papers published from 1984 to December 2018. Keywords related to informal caregivers' caregiving appraisal were used. Cross‐sectional and cohort studies were included. The Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies, and the CASP Cohort Study Checklist were used for quality assessment. Descriptive and narrative synthesis were used to analyse data. Social ecological model was used for classifying the associated factors into different levels. The PRISMA checklist was followed. Results Forty studies were included. The quality of the studies was moderate to high. Data were organised into three levels (individual, interpersonal and community level) and categorised into modifiable factors (e.g. patient behavioural problems, caregiver self‐efficacy and social support) and nonmodifiable factors (e.g. caregiving duration, gender and education). The majority of studies have investigated the factors at the individual level. Conclusion There are inconsistencies in the understanding of caregiving appraisal, and consensus is needed for conceptual clarity. Caregiving appraisal is associated with three levels of factors. These modifiable factors provide evidence for designing evidence‐based interventions, and the nonmodifiable factors help identify confounding factors in assessment and appraisal. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses are the best‐placed healthcare professionals to support informal caregivers. The three levels of associated factors and the interactive approaches provide direction for informing clinical nursing practice. They also provide evidence for healthcare researchers and policymakers to develop interventions and theoretical perspectives and to better allocate healthcare resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanshan Wang & Daphne Sze Ki Cheung & Angela Yee Man Leung & Patricia M. Davidson, 2020. "Factors associated with caregiving appraisal of informal caregivers: A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(17-18), pages 3201-3221, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:17-18:p:3201-3221
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15394
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Ya-Mei & Hedrick, Susan C. & Young, Heather M., 2010. "A pilot evaluation of the Family Caregiver Support Program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 113-119, May.
    2. Toseland, Ronald W. & McCallion, Philip & Gerber, Todd & Banks, Steve, 2002. "Predictors of health and human services use by persons with dementia and their family caregivers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 1255-1266, October.
    3. Li‐Min Kuo & Yea‐Ing L Shyu, 2010. "Process of ambivalent normalisation: experience of family caregivers of elders with mild cognitive impairment in Taiwan," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(23‐24), pages 3477-3484, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ya-Mei Chen, 2014. "Differences in Outcomes of Caregiver Support Services for Male and Female Caregivers," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, August.
    2. Allan K. Nkwata & Ming Zhang & Xiao Song & Bruno Giordani & Amara E. Ezeamama, 2022. "Toxic Psychosocial Stress, Resiliency Resources and Time to Dementia Diagnosis in a Nationally Representative Sample of Older Americans in the Health and Retirement Study from 2006–2016," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Exel, Job van & Graaf, Gjalt de & Brouwer, Werner, 2007. "Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers' attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 332-342, October.
    4. Chen, Ya-Mei & Hedrick, Susan C. & Young, Heather M., 2010. "A pilot evaluation of the Family Caregiver Support Program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 113-119, May.
    5. van Exel, Job & Moree, Marjolein & Koopmanschap, Marc & Goedheijt, Trudy Schreuder & Brouwer, Werner, 2006. "Respite care--An explorative study of demand and use in Dutch informal caregivers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 194-208, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:17-18:p:3201-3221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.