Cited by 0Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

Measurement Instruments Used to Assess Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers of Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Open access
Cerrone, Valentina, Capasso, Rocco, Cascella, Marco, Rubbi, Ivan, Gisi, Anna Di, Di Santo, Pierpaolo, Andretta, Vincenzo·2026·Nursing Reports

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Caregiver burden is a relevant dimension of the caregiving experience among informal caregivers of cancer patients and is associated with psychological, physical, and social consequences. Although several instruments are available to assess the phenomenon, there is still limited consistency in the tools used across empirical oncology studies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. A literature search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO up to February 2026. Quantitative studies assessing caregiver burden using standardized instruments in informal caregivers of adult cancer patients were included. Results: Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria. The most frequently used instruments were the Zarit Burden Interview, followed by the Caregiver Burden Inventory. Less frequently used instruments included the Caregiver Reaction Assessment and the Caregiver Burden Scale. Most included studies relied on generic caregiver burden instruments originally developed outside oncology-specific contexts. Conclusions: Considerable heterogeneity exists in the instruments used to assess caregiver burden in oncology research. Empirical studies continue to rely predominantly on generic caregiver burden scales, while oncology-specific tools appear to be underused. Greater consistency in instrument selection may improve comparability across studies and support the integration of caregiver assessment into oncology practice.

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 · 10.3390/nursrep16050172

Cites

5 of 5 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

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

Authors
Cerrone, V., Capasso, R., Cascella, M., Rubbi, I., Gisi, A. D., Di Santo, P., & Andretta, V.
Affiliations
  • AOU San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona (IT)
  • Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" (IT)
  • University of Salerno (IT)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • UOS SPS Direzione Sanitaria, AORN San Giuseppe Moscati, 83100 Avellino, Italy
Corresponding author
Andretta, Vincenzo
Venue
Nursing Reports
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2026-05-19
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
172
ISSN
  • 2039-439X (ISSN-L)
  • 2039-4403
OpenAlex
W7161648500
Cited by
0
References
5
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nursing Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
caregiver burden, informal caregivers, adult cancer patients, measurement instruments, Zarit Burden Interview, Caregiver Burden Inventory, Caregiver Reaction Assessment, Caregiver Burden Scale

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