ReviewPulmonary circulation2022
Examining the impact of pulmonary hypertension on nonprofessional caregivers: A mixed-methods systematic review.
Review in Pulmonary circulation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Socioeconomic Burden of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Patients and Caregivers: A Canadian Cross-Sectional Study.CJC open · 2026Article
- The ethical application of artificial intelligence in digital health: patients' knowledge, pulmonary hypertension, and the problem of misrecognition.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making During Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Therapy Selection: A Patient and Clinician Survey.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Can self-compassion help us better understand the impact of pulmonary hypertension on those with the condition and their carers? A cross-sectional analysis.Pulmonary circulation · 2023Article
- Examining the impact of pulmonary hypertension on nonprofessional caregivers: A mixed-methods systematic review.Pulmonary circulation · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a heterogeneous condition, associated with a high symptom burden and high rates of disability. While nonprofessional caregivers are essential in helping patients live better, little is known about the impact on caregivers and support that is currently available. This review has synthesised evidence examining experiences of caregivers of adults with PH. Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched for all types of study design. Articles were evaluated and analysed using a Joanna Briggs Institute approach. Eight articles primarily focussed on pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic PH were identified investigating 456 caregivers from at least 10 countries. Four categories were identified describing caregiver demographics, responsibilities, impact, and support. Four integrated themes emerged identifying possible unmet needs and therapeutic targets: (1) Change, reflecting the various demands caring had on people as they attempted to balance the needs of the patient and their own; (2) Preparedness, discussing how caregivers could feel uncertain and unskilled for their duties and unsupported; (3) Isolation, with caregivers often encountering challenges to gaining information on PH turning to PH organisations and others affected for support and connection; and (4) Physical and mental demands, reflecting the multifaceted impact of caring. Findings add to the evidence demonstrating that PH can have a considerable impact on patients' support network. Providing support for caregivers of people with PH is an unmet need and may have a positive impact on patients and is an area that requires further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.