ArticleBMJ open2023
Instruments in general practice to identify and to measure (over)burden due to informal care for caring relatives: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFamily caregivers provide by far the largest share of long-term, unpaid care for their primarily elderly and chronically ill relatives or friends. This is associated with a higher risk of psychological and physical overload for the caregivers due to the persistently high time, financial and emotional burden.Recognising the effects of persistent burden on caring relatives at an early stage significantly contributes to the appropriate coordination of available resources and mediation of individual support to maintain a functional caring relationship without excessive demands. General practitioners are usually responsible for the early detection of burden arising from informal care and the coordination of adequate measures. The objective of this review is to give an overview of instruments to identify and measure (over)burden of caring relatives in German general practice and to describe their characteristics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist in addition to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual to describe the aims and methods of the planned scoping reviews. This protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/9ce2k. Two reviewers will run the search to identify studies in four databases (PubMed, LIVIVO, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL) in June and July 2023. Abstracts, titles and full-text publications will be screened to extract data from each included study using a data extraction form. Additionally, an overview of all studies including main study characteristics and detailed information on identification instruments will be given to map the different instruments and tools and to clarify statements concerning their use and practicability in general practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval or consent to participate is not required, as data in this study consists of published studies and not individual data from human or animal participants. Dissemination will consist of publications, presentations and other knowledge translation activities.
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.