↓ 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 22%
Psychology 12 7%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 45 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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
#1,305,003
of 18,062,643 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#235
of 1,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,393
of 269,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,062,643 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 269,288 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.