↓ Skip to main content

Reported burden on informal caregivers of ICU survivors: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
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
Reported burden on informal caregivers of ICU survivors: a literature review
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1185-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilse van Beusekom, Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez, Nicolette F. de Keizer, Dave A. Dongelmans, Marike van der Schaaf

Abstract

Critical illness and the problems faced after ICU discharge do not only affect the patient, it also negatively impacts patients' informal caregivers. There is no review which summarizes all types of burden reported in informal caregivers of ICU survivors. It is important that the burdens these informal caregivers suffer are systematically assessed so the caregivers can receive the professional care they need. We aimed to provide a complete overview of the types of burdens reported in informal caregivers of adult ICU survivors, to make recommendations on which burdens should be assessed in this population, and which tools should be used to assess them. We performed a systematic search in PubMed and CINAHL from database inception until June 2014. All articles reporting on burdens in informal caregivers of adult ICU survivors were included. Two independent reviewers used a standardized form to extract characteristics of informal caregivers, types of burdens and instruments used to assess these burdens. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and the PEDro scales. The search yielded 2704 articles, of which we included 28 in our review. The most commonly reported outcomes were psychosocial burden. Six months after ICU discharge, the prevalence of anxiety was between 15 % and 24 %, depression between 4.7 % and 36.4 % and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) between 35 % and 57.1 %. Loss of employment, financial burden, lifestyle interference and low health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were also frequently reported. The most commonly used tools were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression questionnaire, and Impact of Event Scale (IES). The quality of observational studies was low and of randomized studies moderate to fair. Informal caregivers of ICU survivors suffer a substantial variety of burdens. Although the quality of the included studies was poor, there is evidence that burden in the psychosocial field is most prevalent. We suggest screening informal caregivers of ICU survivors for anxiety, depression, PTSD, and HRQoL using respectively the HADS, IES and Short Form 36 and recommend a follow-up period of at least 6 months.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 28 13%
Other 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Other 42 20%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 25%
Psychology 11 5%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 59 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#709,772
of 19,680,162 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#561
of 5,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,663
of 361,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,680,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 361,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 92% of its contemporaries.