IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Carer Stress on Subsequent Institutionalisation of Community-Dwelling Older People

Author

Listed:
  • Nora-Ann Donnelly
  • Anne Hickey
  • Annette Burns
  • Paul Murphy
  • Frank Doyle

Abstract

Background: In the caregiving literature there is a common assertion that a higher level of carer stress is a critical determinant of premature ending of homecare. However, this contention has not been systematically assessed. We therefore systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the prospective association between various forms of carer stress and subsequent institutionalisation of community-dwelling older people. Methods: Systematic literature search of prospective studies measuring carer stress at baseline and institutionalisation at follow-up. Given substantial interchangeability in the measurement of carer stress, we included a wide number of exposure measures, namely: carer stress, burden, depression, distress, anxiety, burnout, and strain. Institutionalisation included both acute and long-term care utilisation. The standardised mean difference between stressed and non-stressed carers was the primary measure of effect. We assessed study quality with the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Pre-planned sensitivity analysis included examination of estimates according to study size; decade published; study quality according to quartiles of CCAT scores; population; follow-up period; study design and impact of adjusted or unadjusted estimates. Results: The search yielded 6,963 articles. After exclusions, we analysed data from 54 datasets. The meta-analysis found that while carer stress has a significant effect on subsequent institutionalisation of care recipients, the overall effect size was negligible (SMD=0·05, 95% CI=0·04–0·07). Sensitivity analyses found that, the effect size was higher for measurements of stress than for other measures, though still relatively small (SMD=0·23, 95% CI=0·09–0·38). Thus, whether analysing the association between carer stress, burden, distress, or depression with either acute or long-term care, the effect size remains small to negligible. Concurrently, we found estimates reduce over time and were smaller with larger studies and those of higher quality, according to the CCAT scores. Conclusion: Despite strong statements to the contrary, it appears that the effect of carer stress on subsequent care recipient institutionalisation is small to negligible. The current findings point to a biased literature, with significant small study effects. The results suggest a need to re-evaluate the degree to which carer stress predicts premature ending of home care. Concurrently, other factors may be more crucial in institutional placement than carer stress and should be investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Nora-Ann Donnelly & Anne Hickey & Annette Burns & Paul Murphy & Frank Doyle, 2015. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Carer Stress on Subsequent Institutionalisation of Community-Dwelling Older People," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128213
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128213
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128213&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128213?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Thomas J. Steichen & Matthias Egger & Jonathan Sterne, 1999. "Tests for publication bias in meta-analysis," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(44).
    3. Anton Kühberger & Astrid Fritz & Thomas Scherndl, 2014. "Publication Bias in Psychology: A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample Size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elizabeth Benninger & Shazly Savahl, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Children’s Construction of the Self: Implications for Children’s Subjective Well-being," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 10(2), pages 545-569, June.
    2. Donnelly, Nora-Ann & Humphries, Niamh & Hickey, Anne & Doyle, Frank, 2017. "“We don’t have the infrastructure to support them at home”: How health system inadequacies impact on long-term care admissions of people with dementia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1280-1287.
    3. Aman, Hiroyuki & Beekes, Wendy & Berkman, Henk & Bohmann, Marc & Bradbury, Michael & Chapple, Larelle & Chang, Millicent & Clout, Victoria & Faff, Robert & Han, Jianlei & Hillier, David & Hodgson, All, 2019. "Responsible science: Celebrating the 50-year legacy of Ball and Brown (1968) using a registration-based framework," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 129-150.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Florian Lange & Cameron Brick, 2021. "Changing Pro-Environmental Behavior: Evidence from (Un)Successful Intervention Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-5, July.
    3. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria, 2018. "Dissertation R.C.M. van Aert," MetaArXiv eqhjd, Center for Open Science.
    4. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Blaine G. Robbins, 2017. "Status, identity, and ability in the formation of trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 408-448, November.
    6. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    7. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    8. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    10. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    11. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    12. Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.
    13. Anton, Roman, 2014. "Sustainable Intrapreneurship - The GSI Concept and Strategy - Unfolding Competitive Advantage via Fair Entrepreneurship," MPRA Paper 69713, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Feb 2015.
    14. Dudek, Thomas & Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Feld, Jan & Rohrer, Julia, 2022. "No Evidence That Siblings' Gender Affects Personality across Nine Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 15137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    16. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    17. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Aurelie Seguin & Wolfgang Forstmeier, 2012. "No Band Color Effects on Male Courtship Rate or Body Mass in the Zebra Finch: Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-11, June.
    19. Ankur Moitra & Dhruv Rohatgi, 2022. "Provably Auditing Ordinary Least Squares in Low Dimensions," Papers 2205.14284, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    20. Dragana Radicic & Geoffrey Pugh & Hugo Hollanders & René Wintjes & Jon Fairburn, 2016. "The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1425-1452, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.