RNSystematic ReviewNursing open2023

Assessing the needs of informal caregivers of patients with chronic non-communicable diseases: A systematic review of self-assessment tools.

Panpan Yang, Mengzhen Ma, Qingyi Guan and 2 others

PMID 37789573

WHAT IT FOUND

Seventeen questionnaires assess informal caregivers' needs, most often psychological, information, communication and healthcare support.

Many lack proof that scores are consistent or catch changes over time, so match the tool to your patient group.

Key findings

01Seventeen tools were included, covering caregivers of people with cancer, stroke, dementia, mental illness and chronic disease.

02The most frequently assessed needs themes were psychological-emotional, information, communication and healthcare professionals support.

03Psychometric quality was uneven: 10 tools had positive content validity, six had positive internal consistency, and no tool reported reliability or responsiveness.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only English and Chinese studies were searched, so tools developed in other languages may be missing. The authors did not contact study authors to fill gaps in psychometric information, so some quality ratings may be incomplete. Most tools were for cancer caregivers, so they may not fit patients with other chronic diseases. The review describes measurement tools and their psychometric properties; it does not show that using a tool improves caregiver or patient care.

Declared interests

Funded by Shandong Province Department of Education and Binzhou Medical University graduate projects; authors declared no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 17 tools as validated instruments for routine use. No tool reported reliability or responsiveness, and many had negative or unclear ratings for other properties, so a score may not be stable or useful for tracking change.

Read it on PubMed →