Cited by 97Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving

Informal caregiver burden for solid tumour cancer patients: a review and future directions

Open access
Thana, Kanjana, Lehto, Rebecca, Sikorskii, Alla, Wyatt, Gwen·2021·Psychology & Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recent shifts in healthcare delivery and treatment for solid tumour cancer patients have modified the responsibilities of informal caregivers. The objective of this study was to: review informal caregiver burden factors and determine areas where future research is needed. METHODS: The Arksey and O'Malley's framework and a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in conducting this review. Research literature was systematically searched using five-electronic databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS, and reference lists from included studies to identify publications since 2010. Inclusion criterion was caregivers providing home-based care to a cancer patient. RESULTS: The search yielded 43 eligible papers of 2119 reviewed, including articles from over 17 countries. Caregiver physical and psychological health, financial strain, and social isolation, as well as limited family and social support continued to be important factors contributing to high levels of caregiver burden. Less recognised factors affecting higher burden included caregivers' self-esteem, male gender, and the dynamic nature of cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This review updates the state of the science on informal caregiver burden when caring for patients with solid tumour cancers and informs future interventions on how to reduce this burden.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2020.1867136

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a systematic review focused on caregiving in solid tumour patients, management of symptoms also emerged as the foremost reported factor affecting burden.

    “For example, in a systematic review focused on caregiving in solid tumour patients, the management of symptoms also emerged as the foremost reported factor affecting burden [47].”

    From Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Results section, under “Frequently reported burden factors” (page unavailable), links symptom-management difficulties to greater caregiver burden. But it identifies caregiver physical and psychological health, financial status, social isolation, and family or social support as the five standout factors; it does not identify symptom management as the foremost reported factor. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Comparing the review's findings with those from past reviews suggests broad similarities between caregiving in pancreatic cancer and other cancers.

    “Comparing our findings with those from past reviews suggests that there are some broad similarities between caregiving in pancreatic cancer and other cancers [14, 47].”
  • Según Thana et al., la mayoría de los cuidadores eran mujeres, con una edad media de 51,34 años y un vínculo consanguíneo en primer grado o relación conyugal con el paciente.

    “De acuerdo con los hallazgos de estos autores, la mayoría de los cuidadores eran mujeres, con una edad media de 51,34 años y un vínculo consanguíneo en primer grado o relación conyugal con el paciente.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Berry L (2019). Support and empower at-home caregivers of patients with cancer. ONS Voice, 34(7), 27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thana, K., Lehto, R., Sikorskii, A., & Wyatt, G.
Affiliations
  • Chiang Mai University (TH)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wyatt, Gwen
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2021-01-04
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
1514-1535
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W3120069984
Cited by
97
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
21.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (1R01 CA 193706)
  • ChiangMai University, Faculty of Nursing, The Michigan State University, College of Nursing scholarship, and Glenn R. Dean and Anita C. Dean Endowed Fellowship
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Keywords
home care, caregiver physical health, caregiver mental health, financial stress, social isolation, family and social support, caregiver self-esteem, male caregivers
MeSH terms
Caregiver Burden, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Social Support, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review