↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between family caregiver burden and physical frailty in older adults without dementia: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relationship between family caregiver burden and physical frailty in older adults without dementia: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0447-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thom Ringer, Afeez Abiola Hazzan, Arnav Agarwal, Adam Mutsaers, Alexandra Papaioannou

Abstract

Physical frailty is a prevalent syndrome in older adults that increases vulnerability for a range of adverse outcomes including increased dependency and death. Caregivers of older adults experience significant physical, emotional, and financial burden, which is associated with poor physical and mental health. While it is known that care recipients' dementia is associated with burden, the literature regarding the impact of physical frailty on burden has yet to be synthesized. We conducted a systematic review to assess the state of the evidence regarding the relationship between these two prominent concepts in the geriatric literature. We used a structured search of databases to identify original English-language articles. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of all 1202 retrieved studies and then full-text versions of 265 retained studies. Screening was based on a priori inclusion criteria, which included discussion of physical frailty, caregiver burden, and a population of community-dwelling older adults without dementia. Nine included papers underwent data abstraction and critical appraisal using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for randomized controlled trials or cross-sectional studies, respectively). Heterogeneity of the included studies precluded meta-analysis. Five publications had the same author and drew from the same population; these were treated as a single study. Three of our studies were of limited value since they did not include a validated measure of frailty. While caregivers of frail older adults experience burden, the scarce available evidence and lack of studies comparing this population with normative values does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the strength or nature of the relationship. Judging from excluded studies, the term "frailty" is often used without reference to a clear definition or is treated as synonymous with functional impairment or advanced age. Our review suggests that caregivers of frail older adults experience burden and that the degree of burden may differ from that of other caregiver populations. The limited evidence does not allow conclusions to be drawn or to inform clinical practice. Further research is needed, given the salience of physical frailty and burden. PROSPERO CRD42015019198.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 239 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 14%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 81 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 19%
Psychology 14 6%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 87 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,021,199
of 25,123,315 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#326
of 2,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,973
of 313,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,123,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.