MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886320675 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231848

Sex and gender differences in caregiving burden experienced by family caregivers of persons with dementia: A systematic review

2020· review· en· W2886320675 on OpenAlexafffund
Chen Xiong, Melissa Biscardi, Arlene Astell, Emily Nalder, Jill I. Cameron, Alex Mihailidis, Angela Colantonio

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaMarch of Dimes CanadaMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyFamily caregiversMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Much is known about the demands of caregiving for persons with dementia (PWD) and its effects on family caregivers, however sex and gender aspects have received less attention. We synthesized the evidence on sex and gender distinctions in: (1) the caregiving burden and (2) the impact of caregiving on the physical and mental health of family caregivers of PWD. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature between January 2007 and October 2019 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies met the following criteria: (1) examine experiences and/or impacts of caregiving among family caregivers of individuals with any form of dementia; (2) report sex and/or gender distribution of study population and/or report results stratified by sex and/or gender, and (3) include both male and female family caregivers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist and National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies. Data were synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included. Caregiving burden was measured using various methods. A majority of studies reported higher burden among females. All studies that did not report a sex and gender difference in caregiving burden accounted for confounders. Findings on sex and gender differences on physical and mental health conditions were inconsistent with most studies failing to account for confounders in their analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on sex and gender differences in caregiving burden, mental and physical health is limited. Findings suggest presence of sex and gender differences in caregiving burden. Given the variety of mental and physical health constructs that were examined, further research is required to substantiate the evidence. PROPSERO Registration Number: CRD 42018070032.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations290
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207