Disease-Related Risk Factors for Caregiver Burden among Family Caregivers of Persons with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to conduct a quantitative synthesis of the clinical correlates of caregiver burden in schizophrenia studies published in the last two decades. Derived from eight electronic databases, this meta-analytic review revisits 34 English articles published from 2000 to 2020 relevant to family caregiver burden in the schizophrenia field. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. The pooled effect sizes of the selected studies ranged from -0.390 to 0.751. The results indicated a significant association between a heavier burden and disease-related risk factors, including more severe symptoms, greater general psychopathology, greater severity of functional impairment, and longer duration of illness. The results show moderating effects of study characteristics (i.e., study quality, participants, and location) on the correlations between these disease-related risk factors and caregiver burden. This review highlights the roles of study characteristics in affecting the inconsistent results for the effects of disease-related risk factors on caregiver burden in families of patients with schizophrenia. Psychosocial interventions are essential for family caregivers of persons with schizophrenia. Future studies incorporating random samples from both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries will be crucial to understand the effects of cultural contexts on caregiver burden in families of persons with schizophrenia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".