ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Informal carers' experiences of mental health services regarding supporting those they care for and getting support for their own wellbeing: A systematic umbrella review of qualitative evidence.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informal carers play a vital role in supporting individuals with mental health difficulties. To provide an overarching synthesis of available evidence, this umbrella review aimed to synthesise qualitative review evidence on informal carers' (including family members, friends, or other unpaid supporters) experiences of mental health services regarding supporting the individuals with mental health difficulties they care for and seeking support for their own wellbeing. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, a meta-aggregative umbrella review was conducted. Five databases were searched up to 9th May 2025: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. The quality of primary systematic reviews was assessed using a framework adapted from the work of SmithBattle and colleagues. Findings were extracted from eligible reviews and aggregated into categories, from which higher-order synthesised findings were developed. Twelve eligible qualitative reviews were identified covering a wide range of mental health service contexts. Six synthesised findings were identified: (1) emotional complexity in the caregiving journey; (2) recognition and coping with their loved ones' mental health difficulties; (3) multiple barriers to accessing mental health support; (4) persistent responsibilities and roles in supporting service users; (5) complex experiences of engaging with services; and (6) relational strain during the caregiving process. While some carers reported positive experiences, most described exclusion, emotional distress, and structural barriers to support. This review highlights the urgent need for mental health services to recognise, involve, and support informal carers.
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.