Quality of life of primary caregivers by severity and control of children’s asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined how the quality of life (QOL) of primary caregivers of children with asthma varies according to asthma severity and control. We also compared caregiver QOL with that of caregivers of healthy children and explored variation across specific QOL domains. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to October 2023. Eligible studies reported caregiver QOL in relation to asthma severity, asthma control, or healthy controls. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. QOL scores were standardised to a 0-100 scale (0 = lowest, 100 = highest) and synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis. Thirteen studies were included. Caregivers of healthy children had the highest QOL (79.63; 95% CI: 69.51-89.75), while those of children with severe persistent asthma reported lower scores (59.63; 95% CI: 55.26-64.00). QOL was also higher among caregivers of children with good asthma control (76.71; 95% CI: 67.58-85.84) compared to those with poor control (62.48; 95% CI: 50.15-74.81). Emotional well-being and activity limitations were the domains most consistently associated with severity and control levels. Caregiver QOL is associated with asthma severity and control. Our findings underscore the need for consistent symptom monitoring and management, and suggest that caregiver support should be a routine consideration in paediatric asthma care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".