Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Assessing the impact of caregiving on informal caregivers of adults with a mental disorder in OECD countries: A systematic literature review of concepts and their respective questionnaires

  • Leonarda G. M. Bremmers ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    bremmers@eshpm.eur.nl

    Affiliation Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Isabelle N. Fabbricotti,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Eleonora S. Gräler,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Carin A. Uyl-de Groot,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    ⨯

Abstract

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and review the concepts and questionnaires used to assess the impact of caregiving on caregivers for adults with a mental disorder. With our study, we aimed to provide an overview and categorize the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving, with special attention for the complexity and multi-conceptualization of concepts. Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Trials, Cinahl Plus, Econlit and Google Scholar were systematically searched for articles from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2019. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed studies that assessed the impact of caregiving for informal caregivers of adults with a reported mental disorder by means of a questionnaire. The complete study protocol can be found on PROSPERO (CRD42020157300). A total of 144 questionnaires were identified that assessed the impact of caregiving. Based on similarities in meaning, concepts were classified into 15 concept clusters. The most frequently assessed concept clusters were mental health, caregiving burden, other caregiving consequences, family impact, and overall health-related outcomes. The use of concept clusters differed per diagnosis group, with diagnoses, such as schizophrenia, using a wide range of caregiving impact concepts and other diagnoses, such as personality disorders, only using a limited range of concepts. This is the first study that identified and reviewed the concepts and questionnaires that are used to assess the impact of caregiving. Caregiving is researched from a broad array of perspectives, with the identification of a variety of concepts and dimensions and use of non-specific questionnaires. Despite increasing interest in this field of research, a high degree of variability remains abundant with limited consensus. This can partially be accredited to differences in the naming of concepts. Ultimately, this review can serve as a reference to researchers who wish to assess the impact of caregiving and require further insight into concepts and their respective questionnaires.

Citation: Bremmers LGM, Fabbricotti IN, Gräler ES, Uyl-de Groot CA, Hakkaart-van Roijen L (2022) Assessing the impact of caregiving on informal caregivers of adults with a mental disorder in OECD countries: A systematic literature review of concepts and their respective questionnaires. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278

Editor: Antony Bayer, Cardiff University, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: October 28, 2021; Accepted: June 7, 2022; Published: July 8, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Bremmers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The mid-twentieth century saw a rise in the international consensus on the need for decentralized psychiatric care and new policy strategies for mental health patients. This consensus resulted in a radical deinstitutionalization movement across the USA, England, Continental Europe, and Scandinavia, with other countries later following suit [1]. The movement was characterized by a shift of care from the institutions to community-based services, with a strong focus on the reintegration and rehabilitation of patients [1, 2]. However, fragmented community-based services often fail to address patients’ complex health needs [2], as suggested by the high prevalence of incarceration, homelessness, loneliness, victimization, and poor physical health outcomes of patients [2–6]. Consequently, patients are increasingly reliant on the care and support provided by their loved ones, hereinafter referred to as informal care [7, 8]. The health care sector relies heavily on informal care, as it complements and substitutes services provided by formal care providers [9–12].

The provision of informal care is often characterized as a significant source of distress for the loved ones of patients and can have a detrimental impact on their daily lives and wellbeing [13]. Hence, the impact of caregiving should be considered in healthcare practice and policy [14, 15]. Perspectives on the impact of caregiving and mental illness have evolved with the introduction of deinstitutionalization [16, 17]. Before the turn of the century, caregiver research centered on two concepts, the negative impact of the patient on the caregiver (i.e., caregiving burden) and the negative impact of the caregiver on the patient (i.e., expressed emotion). This research was largely concentrated on caring for patients with schizophrenia; however, burden was also assessed for caregivers of patients with mood disorders. Over the decades, additional concepts have been developed to assess the rewarding aspects of caregiving, such as caregiving reward [18]. However, Harvey et al. found that caregiver outcomes reported in peer-reviewed articles are still restricted in scope and primarily focus on wellbeing, the caregiving experience, and need for professional support [19].

Despite the impact of caregiving being studied since the start of deinstitutionalization [18], the operationalization and conceptualization of these concepts has received limited academic attention [20]. There are a limited number of conceptual frameworks grounded in psychological and social theories for this caregiving population, with the existing frameworks primarily focused on familial responses to mental disorders [21]. Consequently, researchers report an inconsistent use of theoretical definitions and operationalization across the same concepts [21, 22]. Ergo, the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving may vary greatly between studies. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic literature review has yet investigated the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving in this caregiver population. A literature review conducted by Schene, Tessler, and Gamache compiled caregiving questionnaires and their respective domains; however, this was limited to one concept, namely caregiving burden [23].

A complete overview of the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving could improve the understanding of these concepts [24] and aid in determining how they are used in scientific research. By systematically identifying the similarities and discrepancies of concepts and their respective dimensions across questionnaires, an in-depth insight can be gained into the perspectives that are used in caregiver research. These insights may help researchers to select the appropriate concepts and questionnaires and improve comparability of results across studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify and review the concepts and questionnaires that are used to assess the impact of caregiving on caregivers for adult patients with mental disorders in OECD countries. With our study, we aimed to provide an overview and categorize the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving, with special attention for the complexity and multi-conceptualization of concepts.

Methods

This systematic literature review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Refer to S1 Table for the completed PRISMA checklist [25]. The complete study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020157300).

Search strategy and data sources

The search strategy was constructed a priori with an information specialist using terms related to “informal caregivers,” “mental disorders,” and “questionnaires” [26]. On December 6, 2019, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Trials, Cinahl Plus, Econlit, and Google Scholar were searched. The search was restricted to include articles published from January 1, 2004, onwards. For the complete search strategy refer to S1 File.

Selection criteria

We included quantitative and mixed-method studies published in scientific journals, which reported original data and assessed the impact of caregiving by means of a questionnaire. The informal caregivers had to provide care and support to adults with a reported mental disorder. Relevant mental disorders were identified with the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [27]. Neurocognitive disorders and delirium were not considered, because the nature of these disorders and conditions is not comparable to other mental disorders [28] and thus has a significant impact on the reported caregiving experience [29, 30]. Additionally, care recipients with a physical comorbidity were excluded because they have different care needs and their caregivers are at a higher risk for adverse outcomes and events [31–34]. Care recipients and caregivers had to be at least 18 years of age. Studies needed to be conducted in countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) region [35] to avoid cultural specificity that could be caused by differing cultural norms and perceptions [19]. Lastly, the review was restricted to empirical and peer-reviewed studies that were published in English.

Selection of studies

Prior to the formal screening of hits, the selection criteria were piloted and adjusted amongst the research team (LB, LH, IF) using a randomly selected sample of hits (n = 50). A four-stage screening process was implemented using the selection criteria. First, all search hits were imported into Endnote X6, and duplicates were removed using a reproducible de-duplication method [36]. Second, title and abstract screening were conducted by two independent reviewers (LB, EG). Any disagreements concerning title and abstract eligibility were discussed with the other members of the research team (IF, LH). Third, the full-text articles were retrieved if the review criteria were met or if there was insufficient information in the abstract to assess eligibility. Fourth, full texts were independently screened by two reviewers (LB, IF) and those that met the inclusion criteria were included [25]. Any disagreements concerning article eligibility were discussed with a third reviewer from the research team (LH).

Data extraction

Data were extracted by the primary researcher (LB) using a data extraction matrix. Relevant data included: country, study design, disorder of care recipient, questionnaire name, questionnaire author, concept studied, dimensions, operationalization of each dimension, and the original target population of the questionnaire. Given that some of the questionnaire data were not reported in the articles, it was sometimes necessary to refer to the questionnaires’ reported source article(s).

Data analysis

All concepts were clustered according to the common phenomenon that they assessed. These clusters formed concept clusters which were then titled using the higher-order concept that they assessed. The concept clusters were generated by LB and then reviewed by the other co-authors (IF, CU and LH).

Meta summaries [37] were generated for each concept cluster and reported the dimensions of each questionnaire, including their operationalization. If the operationalization of the dimensions could not be found, then this was reported in the meta-summary as “not reported” (NR). For each meta summary, dimensions were grouped by theme. An overview and explanation of all relevant terms can be found in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Overview of relevant terms and their respective explanations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.t001

To investigate trends, the extracted data were grouped by concept clusters and graphed against the number of times it was assessed from 2004–2019. Additionally, the assessment of concept clusters was determined per diagnosis group.

Results

Literature review and study characteristics

The systematic search yielded a total of 24,314 reference with 9,772 duplicates. Title and abstract screening resulted in the exclusion of 13,659 papers. A total of 883 full-text articles were reviewed. The main reasons for full-text exclusion were, as follows: did not assess the impact of caregiving (n = 236), performed in non-OECD country (n = 98) or was not a peer-reviewed article (n = 91). A total of 173 papers fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.g001

All articles reported observational study designs, including cross-sectional (n = 131, 75%), case-control (n = 21, 12%), prospective cohort study designs (n = 19, 11%), and case-control and cross-sectional (n = 3, 2%). These studies were conducted in OECD countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America, with a majority of the studies being conducted in the United States of America (n = 33, 19%), the United Kingdom (n = 30, 17%), and Spain (n = 26, 15%). A variety of mental disorders were studied; however, the most common disorders were schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders (n = 72, 41%), depressive disorders (n = 19, 11%) and eating disorders (n = 19, 11%). Forty-seven of the articles (27%) did not specify the mental disorder that was studied. For a comprehensive list of study characteristics refer to S2 Table.

Description of questionnaires

A total of 144 questionnaires were identified that assessed the impact of caregiving. Impact of caregiving concepts were categorized into 15 concept clusters, namely caregiving burden, caregiving needs, caregiver service use, characteristics of caregivers, conceptions of mental illness, family impact, mental health, overall caregiving situation, physical health, overall health, quality of life, satisfaction, social impact, work impact, and other caregiving consequences, (Table 2). Three types of questionnaires were identified based on the original target population, namely “specific mental disorder” (n = 32; 22%) “non-specified mental disorder” (n = 46; 32%) and “other” (n = 67; 46%). The specific mental disorders were autism spectrum disorder (n = 3), eating disorders (n = 3), mood disorders (n = 4), personality disorders (n = 4), and primary psychotic disorders (n = 15), and primary psychotic disorders and personality disorders (n = 2). A total of 20 non-validated questionnaires (13%) were identified that were specifically developed for the purpose of those studies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Overview of concept clusters, concepts, and their respective questionnaires, including questionnaires categorization and original target population.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.t002

Impact of caregiving

Conceptualization and operationalization.

The concept clusters are described in detail below. The dimensions and operationalization of each concept (cluster), including all references, can be found in the meta-summaries reported in the S2 File.

Caregiving burden. Caregiving burden assesses the strain and negative consequences of caregiving, with objective and subjective burden emerging as two distinct conceptualizations. Objective burden is the negative occurrences that resulted from caregiving, including the interruption of personal time, missing work, and financial strain. Subjective burden are the affective responses exhibited by the informal caregiver due to their caregiving, including subjective worry and distress. Caregiving burden was assessed for individual caregivers and families that took on a caregiving role. From 28 questionnaires, a total of 70 dimensions were identified. Caregiving burden was operationalized into overall caregiving burden, the impact of caregiving on their daily lives and wellbeing, the caregiver-care recipient relationship, and self-rated incompetence. Overall caregiving burden was assessed as non-specific evaluations of objective and subjective burden and the duration of various caregiving tasks. The impact of caregiving included negative and positive consequences that affected the caregiver’s appraisal of their caregiving situation, their care recipient, and their everyday lives. The effect of caregiving on the caregiver’s everyday life was widespread and included their health, wellbeing, financial situation, work, leisure, and relationships. The effect of caregiving on the family focused on the dynamics of the household, the relationship with their partner, and the impact on individual family members, especially the children. The framing of the caregiver-care recipient relationship was negative and focused on tensions that existed due to the care recipient’s condition and the caregiving situation. Caregiver incompetence was operationalized as the caregiver’s valuation of their caregiving abilities.

Caregiving needs. Caregiving needs refers to the desires and necessities of the informal caregiver due to their caregiving responsibilities. These needs were identified for the family, relatives and other individuals that took on the caregiving role. A total of nine questionnaires operationalized caregiving needs into 25 dimensions. Needs were identified in relation to the caregiving situation and the personal life of the caregiver. Caregiving situation needs were the needs for caregiver support and other needs related to the care recipient’s symptoms and behavior. Caregiver support was identified for different caregiving tasks and caregiver support services. Additionally, caregiver needs in their personal life were identified and operationalized for the caregiver’s social life, work/study, and finances.

Caregiver service use. Caregiver service use is conceptualized as the informal caregiver’s utilization of informal and formal services due to their informal care provision. Caregiver service use was operationalized by six questionnaires into six dimensions. Overall service use was identified as a general service use dimension that considered service use from medical services, community-based and criminal justice service contacts, and different forms of caregiver support use. Caregiver support services included assistance provided to the caregiver on behalf of a variety of informal and formal community-based sources. Medical care use were dimensions that assessed specialized health service utilization (i.e., mental, and physical health services) and primary care service utilization.

Characteristics of caregivers. Characteristics of caregivers are concepts that defined the daily lives of informal caregivers and were impacted by caregiving. Four questionnaires operationalized these concepts into 19 dimensions. These dimensions assessed different aspects of the informal caregiver’s daily life, their caregiving intentions for the future, and sense of coherence. The informal caregiver’s daily life concerned stressful events that could occur, their religion, their involvement in the community, and self-care priorities. The intention to provide care was assessed for different caregiving tasks that the individual would be willing to perform in the future. Sense of coherence refers to the adaptive dispositional orientation of a person that enables them to cope with adverse experiences.

Conceptions of mental illness. Conceptions of mental illness is defined as the informal caregiver’s personal understanding and opinions of mental illness and their care recipient and considered how this was affected by caregiving. This was conceptualized as the informal caregiver’s overall knowledge and their assessment of disease-related behaviors and attitudes. A total of six questionnaires was operationalized into 25 dimensions. Knowledge and understanding of mental disorders were the caregiver’s understanding of the different stages of the patient’s disease trajectory. Stigma emerged as a separate dimension, which concerned the negative or false personal beliefs that the caregiver may have about mental illness or individuals suffering from a mental illness. Personal blame assessed the caregiver’s attribution of blame directed towards themselves and the care recipient for the mental disorder.

Family impact. Family impact is conceptualized as the positive and negative consequences that caregiving and the care recipient have on the family unit. These concepts assessed the family’s dynamics and the family caregiver’s attitudes towards specific mental disorders. Sixteen questionnaires operationalized family impact into 42 dimensions. The dimensions assessed family functioning and communication, expressed emotion, and characterized the family’s caregiving situation. Different aspects relating to family functioning were identified, such as the family’s ability to problem solve and family cohesion. Expressed emotion is a measure of the family environment based on how family members spontaneously talk about their mentally ill relative [195]. The caregiving situation was characterized by the caregiving tasks that were performed and the family’s responses to caregiving and the care recipient.

Mental health. Mental health refers to informal caregiver’s diagnosable psychiatric disorders, psychological wellbeing and distress, and emotional wellbeing measures that were impacted by caregiving. Thirty-three questionnaires assessed mental health concepts and operationalized them into 65 dimensions. Several psychiatric disorders were operationalized, namely burnout, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, and primary psychotic disorders. Dimensions assessing subjective sense of personal worth were found that assessed the informal caregiver’s purpose in life and personal growth. Negative dimensions relating to emotional wellbeing were identified, such as grief and stress. Environmental mastery is a dimension that assesses the informal caregiver’s self-rated sense of control and competence in managing their external environment and making effective use of their surrounding opportunities. Overall psychological measures were operationalized as either negative (i.e., psychological distress) and positive dimensions (i.e., psychological wellbeing).

Overall caregiving situation. Overall caregiving situation refers to the informal caregiver’s appraisal of their caregiving experience and their involvement in the care recipient’s care. A total of 9 questionnaires assessed the overall caregiving situation. From these questionnaires, 29 dimensions were identified. These dimensions assessed the informal caregiver’s appraisal of their caregiving abilities and situation, caregiver support, and care recipient characteristics. The informal caregiver’s appraisal of their caregiving abilities was largely comprised of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the informal caregiver’s perceived ability to succeed in specific situations. Caregiver’s appraisal of their caregiving situation was operationalized into negative and positive dimensions that assessed specific aspects of their caregiving situation, such as interaction guilt and good aspects of the relationship. Caregiving support is the availability and quality of particular caregiver support services. The informal caregiver’s appraisal of the care recipient included negative behaviors, symptoms, and aggression exhibited by the care recipient.

Physical health. Physical health is conceptualized as the caregiver’s overall physical health and specific physical ailments that were impacted by caregiving. From six questionnaires, a total of 14 dimensions were identified. Physical health was operationalized into general health-related characteristics, overall physical health, and physical conditions. General health-related characteristics are factors that may influence the caregiver’s overall physical health, including lifestyle and demographic measures. Overall physical health is the caregiver’s self-rated poor physical health days. Physical conditions are a range of disorders across the major human bodily systems.

Overall health. Overall health is conceptualized as the informal caregiver’s general health status, functioning, and wellbeing due to caregiving. A total of 9 questionnaires assessed overall health and was operationalized into 41 dimensions. The dimensions included the caregiving situation and the informal caregiver’s overall health status. In relation to the caregiving situation, negative characteristics of the care recipient, day-to-day life as a caregiver, safety, and the caregiver-care recipient relationship were identified as relevant domains. Overall health was operationalized as the caregiver’s overall functioning, health, and social wellbeing.

Quality of life. Quality of life is the overall quality of life measures that were impacted by caregiving. Quality of life was conceptualized as general quality of life measures and quality of life measures related to the care and health domains. Six questionnaires operationalized quality of life into 24 dimensions. The domains assessed the caregiver’s environment, which refers to their financial resources, residence, socioeconomic status, and physical environment. The family of the caregiver was evaluated, wherein the dimensions considered the interactions between family members and their overall happiness. Caregiver health was operationalized into domains that assessed their ability to function in terms of their mental, physical, and overall health.

Satisfaction. Satisfaction is defined as a measure of the informal caregiver’s overall fulfilment of their expectations, needs, and wishes in relation to their caregiving situation and other aspects of their life. The concepts were evaluated for families and other individuals that took on the caregiving role. Seven questionnaires operationalized satisfaction into 21 dimensions. Satisfaction with life was operationalized as the informal caregiver’s life being close to ideal, having the important things that they want in life, and having no desire to change anything if they could live their life over. Satisfaction with caregiver support was the caregiver’s satisfaction with respite care, their support from different health providers, and caregiver’s involvement in the care recipient’s treatment. Family satisfaction is satisfaction relating to the functioning of the family as a whole and between spouses.

Social impact. Social impact are the consequences of caregiving on the informal caregiver’s social life and was conceptualized as experienced stigma, social participation, and negative social impact. The concepts were operationalized by six questionnaires with a total of 16 dimensions. The dimensions included the nature of social contacts, social support and participation, and stigma. The nature of social contacts was framed as negative social consequences and the frequency of contact. Negative social consequences included social isolation and rejection. Two different types of social support were identified, namely emotional and practical social support. Social participation evaluated engagement in activities and community-based organizations, such as charitable organizations.

Work impact. Work impact refers to the impact that caregiving had on the informal caregiver’s paid and unpaid work. Three questionnaires assessed work impact-related concepts. From these questionnaires, eight dimensions were identified. These dimensions included productivity loss, labor force participation, and sources of income. Two types of productivity loss were operationalized, namely absenteeism and presenteeism.

Other caregiving consequences. Other caregiving consequences includes impact of caregiving measures that were not domain specific. A total of 10 questionnaires were identified. These concepts were operationalized into 30 dimensions. These dimensions classified consequences based on who was affected by the caregiving situation. Other consequences for the caregiver were operationalized by questionnaires as negative and positive framing of consequences and included consequences for their daily lives, self-development, the relationship with the care recipient, and the caregiving situation.

Trends in concept cluster use.

The five most frequently assessed concept clusters were mental health (n = 75), caregiving burden (n = 65), other caregiving consequences (n = 30), family impact (n = 22), and overall health (n = 22). Mental health and caregiving burden had distinct increases in assessment over the years compared to other concept clusters. The other concept clusters had no clear assessment trends, with some random assessment spikes.

Use of concept clusters per diagnosis group.

Concept use was determined for all diagnosis groups (Table 3). The distribution of concept use differed per diagnosis group. Select diagnosis groups, namely schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, eating disorders, bipolar disorders, depressive disorders, and autism spectrum disorders, employed a broad scope in impact of caregiving. The other diagnosis groups only used a limited number of concept clusters. For anxiety disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, and trauma- and stressor-related disorders, the most assessed concept cluster was mental health. Quality of life was the most assessed concept cluster for anxiety disorders and obsessive compulsive and related disorders. Caregiving burden was the top concept cluster for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, and substance-related and addictive disorders.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Use of concept clusters per diagnosis group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.t003

Discussion

This is the first systematic literature review to generate an overview of the questionnaires and concepts used to assess the impact of caregiving. We found that caregiving has a widespread impact on the lives of informal caregivers; however, the assessment of impact was often limited to domain specific measures. Moreover, there was a high degree of variability in the conceptualization and operationalization of the impact of caregiving. Despite the increasing number of publications in this field of research, there is no clear consensus on the use of concepts and questionnaires. The results of the review indicate that over the last 15 years, a variety of concepts were used to assess the impact of caregiving, irrespective of the type of mental disorder and timeframe. The variability can partly be accredited to the terminology used to define the respective area of impact. When concepts were clustered, the impact of caregiving was conceptualized into 15 concept clusters.

In our study, we found that the current conceptualization and operationalization of caregiving impact does not align with theoretical frameworks in the field. The current caregiving research paradigm aims to understand the experience of having a relative with a mental disorder [21] and allows for the negative and positive assessment of informal caregiving [196]. These theoretical models include theories of resilience [197, 198] and stress-coping approaches [199] and form the basis of some of the questionnaires that were identified in the review, such as the Experience of Caregiving Inventory [22]. These respective concepts were classified as other caregiving consequences and overall caregiving situation and address the shortcomings of concepts that are not grounded in psychological and social theories (i.e., caregiving burden). Caregiving burden is critiqued for being difficult to operationalize [21, 22] and unable to recognize the rewarding aspects of caregiving [200]. However, as evidenced by our review, concepts such as caregiving burden remain popular in caregiving research. This could be due to the historical use of this concept in caregiving research [18] and methodological limitations of studies that support the negative assessment of informal caregiving [196].

The assessment of the caregiving impact differed across disease groups, with certain disease groups assessing a range of concepts and others only assessing a limited number of concepts. Further research is needed to determine whether the impact of caregiving is truly less widespread for particular disease groups. This trend appeared to correspond with the number of times that a disease group was studied. Schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders were the most studied disease group in our review and have received academic attention since the start of deinstitutionalization [18]. This may be due to the symptomology of primary psychotic disorders [201] and disease-related stigma [202, 203]. Symptomology of disorders can have a significant impact on caregivers, regardless of diagnosis [204]. For example, positive symptoms of schizophrenia patients are received differently by caregivers than negative symptoms [201]. Similarly, caregiver burden has been found to fluctuate due to varying behavior exhibited by bipolar patients across manic and hypomanic episodes [205]. Nonetheless, peer-reviewed literature is generally focused on investigating the impact of caregiving for specific mental disorders and not symptoms [206–208].

The sensitivity of identified questionnaires may not be sufficient to detect the impact of caregiving for this study population, because almost half of the questionnaires were not originally developed for psychiatric disorders. The lived experiences of caregivers for patients with mental disorders are complex [209] and differ to that of other informal caregivers [33, 210]. They are often left vulnerable to structural discrimination, which can adversely affect their social interactions and access to certain social roles [211–214]. Likewise, the symptoms of severe mental disorders have been identified as strong predictors of depression and anxiety [215]. Caregivers state that they often have difficulties understanding the symptoms and behavior of their loved ones [216]. They are also required to navigate fragmented medical, legal, and governmental systems to ensure that their loved ones receive adequate medical care. These formal systems often neglect the informal caregiver and undervalue their role [209, 217]. Currently, limited data is available to determine the acceptability, reliability, and validity of questionnaires for this caregiving population [19]. However, the comparability of questionnaires across studies and conditions should also be considered when selecting a questionnaire.

Future research recommendations

The results of this review give an initial insight into the operationalization and conceptualization of the impact of caregiving; however, further research is needed to: (a) ensure the completeness of concepts and dimensions, (b) validate the formulation of our concept clusters, (c) explore the prioritization of concepts by informal caregivers, (d) determine whether the lived experiences of this caregiving population warrant the use of specific questionnaires, and (e) investigate how the conceptualization and operationalization of caregiving impact may differ across diagnosis groups.

Methodological limitations

There are some limitations that should be explored. Firstly, the paper should be scrutinized for categorical bias. Categorical bias could have occurred during the generation of the concept clusters because the process required a degree of personal interpretation. Secondly, the transferability of our findings to other cultural settings is limited, due to the exclusion of non-English publications and non-OECD research. The cultural norms and perceptions concerning informal caregiving has been found to vary greatly across countries and could have impacted our identification of concepts [19]. Thirdly, studies and questionnaires could not be identified for some mental disorders. These factors may have affected the selection of concepts and their respective operationalization. Lastly, the generalizability of our study was limited to adult caregivers and care recipients. The age of the care recipient and caregiver is a factor that not only alters the caregiving experience, but also plays a role in the impact of caregiving. For example, concepts such as parentification are not relevant for adults and was not included in our concept list but should be considered for minors [218].

Supporting information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Study characteristics of component articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.s002

(DOCX)

S1 File. Complete search string per database.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.s003

(DOCX)

S2 File. Impact of caregiving meta-summaries.

NR = not reported.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270278.s004

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank dr. Maarten F. M. Engel from the Erasmus MC Medical Library for developing and updating the search strategies.

References

  1. 1. Novella EJ. Theoretical accounts on deinstitutionalization and the reform of mental health services: a critical review. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;11(3): 303–314. pmid:18270804
  2. 2. French L. Victimization of the mentally ill: an unintended consequence of deinstitutionalization. Soc Work. 1987;32(5): 502–505. pmid:10302120
  3. 3. Lamb RH, Weinberger LE. The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33(4): 529–534. pmid:16394231
  4. 4. Priebe S, Frottier P, Gaddini A, Kilian R, Lauber C, Martínez-Leal R, et al. Mental health care institutions in nine European countries, 2002 to 2006. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(5): 570–573. pmid:18451020
  5. 5. Sisti DA, Segal AG, Emanuel EJ. Improving Long-term Psychiatric Care: Bring Back the Asylum. JAMA. 2015;313(3): 243–244. pmid:25602990
  6. 6. DeRisi W, Vega WA. The impact of deinstitutionalization on California’s state hospital population. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1983;34(2): 140–145. pmid:6826161
  7. 7. World Health Organization, World Bank. World report on disability 2011. [Internet]. 2011. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44575
    • 8. Szmukler GI, Parkman TWS. Care-giving and the impact on carers of a community mental health service. PRiSM Psychosis Study. 6. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;173: 399–403. pmid:9926056
    • 9. Knickman JR, Snell EK. The 2030 Problem: Caring for Aging Baby Boomers. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(4): 849–884. pmid:12236388
    • 10. Van Houtven CH, Norton EC. Informal care and health care use of older adults. J Health Econ. 2004;23(6): 1159–1180. pmid:15556241
    • 11. Van Houtven CH, Norton EC. Informal care and Medicare expenditures: testing for heterogeneous treatment effects. J Health Econ. 2008;27(1): 134–156. pmid:17462764
    • 12. Bremer P, Challis D, Rahm Hallberg I, Leino-Kilpi H, Saks K, Vellas B, et al. Informal and formal care: Substitutes or complements in care for people with dementia? Empirical evidence for 8 European countries. Health Policy. 2017;121(6): 613–622. pmid:28449885
    • 13. Oyebode JR. Carers as partners in mental health services for older people. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2005;11(4): 297–304.
    • 14. Brouwer WBF. The Inclusion of Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Not an Optional Extra. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(4): 451–456. pmid:30328563
    • 15. Wittenberg E, James LP, Prosser LA. Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(4): 475–499. pmid:30887469
    • 16. Bauer JM, Sousa-Poza A. Impacts of Informal Caregiving on Caregiver Employment, Health, and Family. J Popul Ageing. 2015;8: 113–145.
    • 17. Gerace L. Schizophrenia and the family: Nursing implications. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1988;2(3): 141–145. pmid:3395147
    • 18. Schene AH, Tessler RC, Gamache GM. Caregiving in severe mental illness: conceptualization and measurement. In: Knudsen HC, Thornicroft G, editors. Mental health service evaluation. 1st ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 296–316.
      • 19. Harvey K, Catty J, Langman A, Winfield H, Clement S, Burns E, et al. A review of instruments developed to measure outcomes for carers of people with mental health problems. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008;117(3): 164–176. pmid:18241311
      • 20. Zendjidjian XY, Boyer L. Challenges in measuring outcomes for caregivers of people with mental health problems. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2014;16(2): 159–169. pmid:25152655
      • 21. Rungreangkulkij S, Gilliss CL. Conceptual Approaches to Studying Family Caregiving for Persons With Severe Mental Illness. J Fam Nurs. 2000;6(4): 341–366.
      • 22. Szmukler GI, Burgess P, Herrman H, Benson A, Colusa S, Bloch S. Caring for relatives with serious mental illness: the development of the Experience of Caregiving Inventory. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1996;31(3–4): 137–148. pmid:8766459
      • 23. Schene AH, Tessler RC, Gamache GM. Instruments measuring family or caregiver burden in severe mental illness. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1994;29(5): 228–240. pmid:7992146
      • 24. Beatty P, Collins D, Kaye L, Padilla JL, Willis G, Wilmot A, editors. Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley Publishers; 2020.
        • 25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000097. pmid:19621072
        • 26. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4): 531–541. pmid:30271302
        • 27. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th edition. Arlington (VA): American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
          • 28. Sachdev PS, Blacker D, Blazer DG, Ganguli M, Jeste DV, Paulsen JS, et al. Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(11): 632–642. pmid:25266297
          • 29. Papastavrou E, Charalambous A, Tsangari H, Karayiannis G. The burdensome and depressive experience of caring: what cancer, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease caregivers have in common. Cancer Nurs. 2012;35(3): 187–194. pmid:22538260
          • 30. Gupta S, Isherwood G, Jones K, Van Impe K. Assessing health status in informal schizophrenia caregivers compared with health status in non-caregivers and caregivers of other conditions. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15: 162. pmid:26194890
          • 31. Price ML, Surr CA, Gough B, Ashley L. Experiences and support needs of informal caregivers of people with multimorbidity: a scoping literature review. Psychol Health. 2020;35(1): 36–69. pmid:31321995
          • 32. Koller D, Schön G, Schäfer I, Glaeske G, van den Bussche H, Hansen H. Multimorbidity and long-term care dependency—a five-year follow-up. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14: 70. pmid:24884813
          • 33. Malliori MM, Chioti V, Konstantopoulou K. Extra care burden in comorbid mental-somatic illnesses. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2010;23(4): 373–377. pmid:20531077
          • 34. Hastrup LH, Van Den Berg B, Gyrd-Hansen D. Do informal caregivers in mental illness feel more burdened? A comparative study of mental versus somatic illnesses. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(6):598–607. pmid:21752848
          • 35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Member Countries. https://www.oecd.org/about/member-and-partners/ [Accessed 31 December 2019].
            • 36. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3): 240–243. pmid:27366130
            • 37. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York (NY): Springer; 2007.
              • 38. Novak M, Guest C. Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory. Gerontologist. 1989;29(6): 798–803. pmid:2516000
              • 39. Brannan AM, Heflinger CA, Bickman L. The Caregiver Strain Questionnaire: Measuring the Impact on the Family of Living with a Child with Serious Emotional Disturbance. J Emot Behav Disord. 1997;5(4): 212–222.
              • 40. Sepulveda AR, Whitney J, Hankins M, Treasure J. Development and validation of an Eating Disorders Symptom Impact Scale (EDSIS) for carers of people with eating disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6: 28. pmid:18426597
              • 41. Stueve A, Vine P, Struening EL. Perceived burden among caregivers of adults with serious mental illness: comparison of black, Hispanic, and white families. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1997;67(2): 199–209. pmid:9142353
              • 42. Heru AM, Ryan CE. Burden, reward and family functioning of caregivers for relatives with mood disorders: 1-year follow-up. J Affect Disord. 2004;83(2–3): 221–225. pmid:15555717
              • 43. Arai Y, Kudo K, Hosokawa T, Washio M, Miura H, Hisamichi S. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Zarit Caregiver Burden interview. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1997;51(5): 281–287. pmid:9413874
              • 44. Martín Carrasco M, Salvadó I, Nadal Álava S, Miji LC; Rico JM, Lanz P, et al. Adaptación para nuestro medio de la escala de sobrecarga del cuidador (Caregiver Burden Interview) de Zarit [Adaptation for our setting of the Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview scale]. Rev Gerontol. 1996; 6(4): 338–345.
              • 45. Cirici Amell R, Cobo J, Castanyer MM, Giménez Gómez N. Gender and other factors influencing the burden of care in relatives of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Int J Cult Ment Health. 2018;11(4): 638–652.
              • 46. Ozlu A, Yildiz M, Aker T. Burden and burden-related features in caregivers of schizophrenia patients. Düşünen Adam. 2015;28(2): 147–153.
              • 47. Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist. 1980;20(6): 649–655. pmid:7203086
              • 48. Robinson BC. Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol. 1983;38(3): 344–348. pmid:6841931
              • 49. Bickman L, Athay MM, Riemer M, Lambert EW, Kelley SD, Breda C, et al. Manual of the Peabody treatment progress battery. Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University; 2007.
                • 50. Gilleard CJ. Living with Dementia: Community Care of the Elderly Mental Infirm. London (UK): Croom Helm; 1984.
                  • 51. Raenker S, Hibbs R, Goddard E, Naumann U, Arcelus J, Ayton A, et al. Caregiving and coping in carers of people with anorexia nervosa admitted for intensive hospital care. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(4): 346–354. pmid:23108538
                  • 52. Hielscher E, Diminic S, Kealton J, Harris M, Lee YY, Whiteford H. Hours of Care and Caring Tasks Performed by Australian Carers of Adults with Mental Illness: Results from an Online Survey. Community Ment Health J. 2019;55(2): 279–295. pmid:29476284
                  • 53. Pot AM, van Dyck R, Deeg DJ. Ervaren druk door informele zorg: constructie van een schaal [Perceived stress caused by informal caregiving: construction of a scale]. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 1995;26: 214–219.
                  • 54. Struening E, Vine P, Stueve A, Kreisman D, Link B, Ellis M, et al. The Family Impact Study. New York (NY): The New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1993.
                    • 55. Sell H, Thara R, Padmavati R, Kumar S. The Burden Assessment Schedule (BAS). WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 1998. Regional Publication No. 27. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/205977.
                      • 56. Elmståhl S, Malmberg B, Annerstedt L. Caregiver’s burden of patients 3 years after stroke assessed by a novel caregiver burden scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(2): 177–182. pmid:8607743
                      • 57. Gater A, Rofail D, Marshall C, Tolley C, Abetz-Webb L, Zarit SH, et al. Assessing the Impact of Caring for a Person with Schizophrenia: Development of the Schizophrenia Caregiver Questionnaire. Patient. 2015;8(6): 507–520. pmid:25680337
                      • 58. Reinhard SC, Gubman GD, Horwitz AV, Minsky S. Burden assessment scale for families of the seriously mentally ill. Eval Program Plann. 1994;17(3): 261–269.
                      • 59. Martínez A, Nadal S, Beperet M, Mendióroz P, grupo Psicost. Sobrecarga de los cuidadores familiares de pacientes con esquizofrenia: factores determinantes [Burden upon family caregivers of patients with schizophrenia: determining factors]. Anales Sis San Navarra. 2000;23: 101–110.
                      • 60. Vilaplana M, Ochoa S, Martínez A, Villalta V, Martinez-Leal R, Puigdollers E, et al. Validación en población española de la entrevista de carga familiar objetiva y subjetiva (ECFOS-II). Validación en población española del ECFOS-II [Validation in Spanish population of the family objective and subjective burden interview (ECFOS-II). Validity of ECFOS-II in Spanish population]. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2007;35(0):00–00.
                      • 61. Östman M, Hansson L. Family burden and care participation: A test-retest reliability study of an interview instrument concerning families with a severely mentally ill family member. Nord J Psychiatry. 2000;54(5): 327–332.
                      • 62. Tessler RC, Fisher GA, Gamache GM. The family burden interview schedule: Manual. Amherst (MA): Social and Demographic Research Institute; 1992.
                        • 63. Ostman M, Wallsten T, Kjellin L. Family burden and relatives’ participation in psychiatric care: are the patient’s diagnosis and the relation to the patient of importance?. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2005;51(4): 291–301. pmid:16400905
                        • 64. Pai S, Kapur RL. The burden on the family of a psychiatric patient: development of an interview schedule. Br J Psychiatry. 1981;138: 332–335. pmid:7272637
                        • 65. Madianos M, Economou M, Dafni O, Koukia E, Palli A, Rogakou E. Family disruption, economic hardship and psychological distress in schizophrenia: can they be measured?. Eur Psychiatry. 2004;19(7): 408–414. pmid:15504647
                        • 66. Kluiter H, Kramer JJ, Wiersma D. Interview for Measuring the Burden on the Family (IBF). Groningen (NL): University of Groningen; 1998.
                          • 67. Ostman M. The burden experienced by relatives of those with a severe mental illness—differences between those living with and those living apart from the patient. J Intensive Care. 2007;3(1): 35–43.
                          • 68. Levene JE, Lancee WJ, Seeman MV. The perceived family burden scale: measurement and validation. Schizophr Res. 1996;22(2): 151–157. pmid:8958599
                          • 69. Goodman M, Patil U, Triebwasser J, Hoffman P, Weinstein ZA, New A. Parental burden associated with borderline personality disorder in female offspring. J Pers Disord. 2011;25(1): 59–74. pmid:21309623
                          • 70. Morosini PL, Roncone R, Veltro F, Palomba U, Casacchia M. Routine assessment tool in psychiatry: the questionnaire of family attitudes and burden. Ital J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 1991;1(1): 95–101.
                          • 71. Wancata J, Krautgartner M, Berner J, Scumaci S, Freidl M, Alexandrowicz R, et al. The “Carers’ needs assessment for Schizophrenia” An instrument to assess the needs of relatives caring for schizophrenia patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41: 221–229. pmid:16435078
                          • 72. Barrowclough C, Marshall M, Lockwood A, Quinn J, Sellwood W. Assessing relatives’ needs for psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia: a relatives’ version of the Cardinal Needs Schedule (RCNS). Psychol Med. 1998;28(3): 531–542. pmid:9626710
                          • 73. Sono T, Oshima I, Ito J. Family needs and related factors in caring for a family member with mental illness: adopting assertive community treatment in Japan where family caregivers play a large role in community care. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008;62(5): 584–590. pmid:18950379
                          • 74. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
                            • 75. Statistics Canada. General Social Survey Cycle 26: Caregiving and Care Receiving 2012 Study Documentation. Ottawa (CA): Statistics Canada; 2013.
                              • 76. Chamba R, Ahmad W, Hirst M, Lawton D, Beresford B. On the Edge: Minority Ethnic Families Caring for a Severely Disabled Child. Bristol (UK): Policy Press; 1999.
                                • 77. Mulligan J, Sellwood W, Reid GS, Riddell S, Andy N. Informal caregivers in early psychosis: evaluation of need for psychosocial intervention and unresolved grief. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2013;7(3): 291–299. pmid:22741743
                                • 78. Speaks Autism. Autism Speaks Global Public Health Initiative [Internet]. New York (NY): Autism Speaks; 2016. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science-blog?article_type[2196]=2196&article_type[2196]=2196.
                                  • 79. Marwitz J. The Family Needs Questionnaire. [Internet] The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury; 2000. http://www.tbims.org/combi/fnq.
                                    • 80. Perlick DA, Hohenstein JM, Clarkin JF, Kaczynski R, Rosenheck RA. Use of mental health and primary care services by caregivers of patients with bipolar disorder: a preliminary study. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(2): 126–135. pmid:15762853
                                    • 81. Gupta S, Isherwood G, Jones K, van Impe K. Productivity loss and resource utilization, and associated indirect and direct costs in individuals providing care for adults with schizophrenia in the EU5. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7: 593–602. pmid:26648745
                                    • 82. Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Rahman S, Tanskanen A, Majak M, Mehtälä J, Hoti F, et al. Burden for Parents of Patients With Schizophrenia-A Nationwide Comparative Study of Parents of Offspring With Rheumatoid Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Epilepsy, and Healthy Controls. Schizophr Bull. 2019;45(4): 794–803. pmid:30184197
                                    • 83. Cohen JW, Monheit AC, Beauregard KM, Cohen SB, Lefkowitz DC, Potter DE, et al. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national health information resource. Inquiry. 1996–1997;33(4): 373–389.
                                    • 84. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft G, editor. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd ed. London (UK): Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2001. p. 200–224.
                                      • 85. Dunst CJ, Jenkins V, Trivette CM. Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles and Guidelines for Practice. Cambridge (MA): Brookline Books; 1988. Family Support Scale; p. 153–174.
                                        • 86. Sherr ME, Stamey JD, Garland D. A faith practices scale for the church. Fam Community Health. 2009;23(1): 27–36.
                                        • 87. Jewell TC, Stein CH. Parental influence on sibling caregiving for people with severe mental illness. Community Ment Health J. 2002;38(1): 17–33. pmid:11892853
                                        • 88. Leith JE, Jewell TC, Stein CH. Caregiving Attitudes, Personal Loss, and Stress-Related Growth Among Siblings of Adults with Mental Illness. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27: 1193–1206.
                                        • 89. Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1987.
                                          • 90. Lobban F, Barrowclough C, Jones S. Assessing cognitive representations of mental health problems. II. The illness perception questionnaire for schizophrenia: Relatives’ version. Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(Pt 2): 163–179. pmid:16004652
                                          • 91. Schiffman J, Kline E, Reeves G, Jones A, Medoff D, Lucksted A, et al. Differences Between Parents of Young Versus Adult Children Seeking to Participate in Family-to-Family Psychoeducation. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(2): 247–250. pmid:24492901
                                          • 92. Evans-Lacko S, Little K, Meltzer H, Rose D, Rhydderch D, Henderson C, et al. Development and psychometric properties of the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55(7): 440–448. pmid:20704771
                                          • 93. Tanaka G. Development of the Mental Illness and Disorder Understanding Scale. Int J Japanese Sociol. 2003;12(1): 95–107.
                                          • 94. Vandereycken W. Validity and reliability of the Anorectic Behavior Observation Scale for parents. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1992;85(2): 163–166. pmid:1543043
                                          • 95. Link BG, Phelan JC, Bresnahan M, Stueve A, Pescosolido BA. Public conceptions of mental illness: labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9): 1328–1333. pmid:10474548
                                          • 96. Stocker CM, Lanthier RP, Furman W. Sibling Relationships in Early Adulthood. J Fam Psychol. 1997;11(2): 210–221.
                                          • 97. Wiedemann G, Rayki O, Feinstein E, Hahlweg K. The Family Questionnaire: development and validation of a new self-report scale for assessing expressed emotion. Psychiatry Res. 2002;109(3): 265–279. pmid:11959363
                                          • 98. Kavanagh DJ, O’Halloran P, Manicavasagar V, Clark D, Piatkowska O, Tennant C, et al. The Family Attitude Scale: Reliability and validity of a new scale for measuring the emotional climate of families. Psychiatry Res. 1997;70(3): 185–195. pmid:9211580
                                          • 99. Gerlsma C, van der Lubbe PM, van Nieuwenhuizen C. Factor analysis of the level of expressed emotion scale, a questionnaire intended to measure ’perceived expressed emotion’. Br J Psychiatry. 1992;160: 385–389. pmid:1562866
                                          • 100. Caqueo-Urízar A, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J, Ferrer-García M, Peñaloza-Salazar C, Richards-Araya D, Cuadra-Peralta A. Attitudes and burden in relatives of patients with schizophrenia in a middle income country. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12: 101. pmid:21943329
                                          • 101. Olson DH, Barnes H. Family Communication Scale. St Paul (MN): University of Minnesota; 1996.
                                            • 102. Koren PE, DeChillo N, Friesen BJ. Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabil Psychol. 1992;37(4): 305–321.
                                            • 103. Tessler R, Gamache G. Toolkit for Evaluating Family Experiences with Severe Mental Illness. Cambridge (MA): Human Services Research Institute; 1995.
                                              • 104. Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther. 1983;9(2): 171–180.
                                              • 105. Heru AM, Ryan CE, Vlastos K. Quality of life and family functioning in caregivers of relatives with mood disorders. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2004;28(1): 67–71. pmid:15468639
                                              • 106. Hoffman L, Marquis J, Poston D, Summers JA, Turnbull A. Assessing Family Outcomes: Psychometric Evaluation of the Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale. J Marriage Fam. 2006;68(4): 1069–1083.
                                              • 107. Verdiano DL. Family roles: An integration of theory, research, and practice. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 1986. https://www.proquest.com/openview/7d17d5060f0a94125891a4fd22169966/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
                                                • 108. Garland DR, Edmonds JA. Family life of Baptists. Fam Community Ministries. 2007;21(1): 6–21.
                                                • 109. Bonner MJ, Hardy KK, Guill AB, McLaughlin C, Schweitzer H, Carter K. Development and validation of the parent experience of child illness. J Pediatr Psychol. 2006;31(3): 310–321. pmid:15917492
                                                • 110. Beck AT, Steer RA. Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio (TX): The Psychological Corporation; 1990.
                                                  • 111. Maslach CJ, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996.
                                                    • 112. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1997;1(3): 385–401.
                                                    • 113. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W. Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess. 1996;67(3): 588–597. pmid:8991972
                                                    • 114. Hautzinger M, Kuehner C, Keller F. BDI-II Beck-Depressions-Inventar [BDI-II Beck Depression Inventory]. Pearson Assessment & Information GmbH; 2006.
                                                      • 115. Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol. 1986;5(1–2): 165–173.
                                                      • 116. Haro JM, Arbabzadeh-Bouchez S, Brugha TS, de Girolamo G, Guyer ME, Jin R, et al. Concordance of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 (CIDI 3.0) with standardized clinical assessments in the WHO World Mental Health surveys. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2006;15(4): 167–180. pmid:17266013
                                                      • 117. Kessler RC, Ustun TB, editors. The WHO World Mental Health Surveys: global perspectives on the epidemiology of mental disorders. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2008.
                                                        • 118. Lobo A, Pérez-Echeverría MJ, Artal J. Validity of the scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in a Spanish population. Psychol Med. 1986;16(1): 135–140. pmid:3961039
                                                        • 119. Garyfallos G, Karastergiou A, Adamopoulou A, Moutzoukis C, Alagiozidou E, Mala D, et al. Greek version of the General Health Questionnaire: Accuracy of translation and validity. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1991;84(4): 371–378. pmid:1746290
                                                        • 120. Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979;9(1): 139–145. pmid:424481
                                                        • 121. Huppert FA, Walters DE, Day NE, Elliott BJ. The factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30): A reliability study on 6317 community residents. Br J Psychiatry. 1989;155: 178–185. pmid:2633776
                                                        • 122. Schmitz N, Kruse J, Tress W. Psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in a German primary care sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1999;100(6): 462–468. pmid:10626926
                                                        • 123. Goldberg D, Bridges K, Duncan-Jones P, Grayson D. Detecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings. BMJ. 1988;297: 897. pmid:3140969
                                                        • 124. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE Jr, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29(2): 169–176. pmid:1994148
                                                        • 125. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26: 41–54.
                                                        • 126. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6): 361–370. pmid:6880820
                                                        • 127. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
                                                          • 128. Struening EL, Stueve A, Vine P, Kreisman DE, Link BG, Herman DB. Factors associated with grief and depressive symptoms in caregivers of people with serious mental illness. Res Commun Ment Health, 1995;8: 91–124.
                                                          • 129. Lindenbaum K, Stroka MA, Linder R. Informal caregiving for elderly people with mental illnesses and the mental health of the informal caregivers. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2014;17(3): 99–105. pmid:25543113
                                                          • 130. Crawford JR, Smith G, Maylor EA, Della Sala S, Logie RH. The Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ): Normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Memory. 2003;11(3): 261–275. pmid:12908675
                                                          • 131. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5: 63. pmid:18042300
                                                          • 132. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. Profile of Mood States (POMS) Manual. San Diego (CA): Educational and Industrial Testing Service; 1981.
                                                            • 133. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24: 385–396. pmid:6668417
                                                            • 134. Derogatis LR. BSI-18: Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual. New York (NY): NCS Pearson; 2001.
                                                              • 135. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney (AU): Psychology Foundation; 1995.
                                                                • 136. González de Rivera JL, De las Cuevas C, Rodríguez M, Rodríguez F. Cuestionario de 90 Síntomas [90 Symptom Questionnaire]. Madrid (ES): TEA; 2002.
                                                                  • 137. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, Walters EE, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6): 959–976. pmid:12214795
                                                                  • 138. Mroczek DK, Kolarz CM. The effect of age on positive and negative affect: a developmental perspective on happiness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(5): 1333–1349. pmid:9866191
                                                                  • 139. Arrindell WA, Ettema JH. Symptom Checklist SCL-90. Handleiding bij een multi-dimensionele psychopathologie-indicator [Symptom Checklist SCL-90. Hanbook for a multi-dimensional psychopathology indicator]. Lisse (NL): Swets Test Publishers; 2003.
                                                                    • 140. Derogatis LR, Cleary PA. Factorial invariance across gender for the primary symptom dimensions of the SCL-90. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1977;16(4): 347–356. pmid:588890
                                                                    • 141. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6): 1069–1081.
                                                                    • 142. Fernandez JL, Mielgo N. Escala de appreciacion de estres [Scale of stress perception]. Madrid (ES): TEA Ediciones; 2001.
                                                                      • 143. Weiss D, Marmar C. The impact of event scale- revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM, editors. Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 1997.
                                                                        • 144. Miller F, Dworkin J, Ward M, Barone D. A preliminary study of unresolved grief in families of seriously mentally ill patients. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1990;41(12): 1321–1325. pmid:2276725
                                                                        • 145. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD. Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28(6): 487–495. pmid:2076086
                                                                        • 146. Lelliott P, Beevor A, Hogman G, Hyslop J, Lathlean J, Ward M. Carers’ and users’ expectations of services—carer version (CUES-C): A new instrument to support the assessment of carers of people with a severe mental illness. J Ment Health. 2003;2: 143–152.
                                                                        • 147. Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology. Primary Research about Health and Welfare Policy among Elderly and Disabled Persons: Research of Needs in Mitaka-City. Tokyo (JP): Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology; 1997.
                                                                          • 148. Nijman H, Bowers L, Oud N, Jansen G. Psychiatric nurses’ experiences with inpatient aggression. Aggress Behav. 2005;31(3): 217–227.
                                                                          • 149. Jewell TC. Adult siblings of people with serious mental illness: The relationship between self -and -sibling -care beliefs and psychological adjustment. Ann Arbor (MI): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 1999. https://www.proquest.com/openview/c51d582b6137eff8b179d43940e364d3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
                                                                            • 150. Lawn S, McMahon J. Experiences of family carers of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015;22(4): 234–243. pmid:25857849
                                                                            • 151. Labrum T, Solomon P. Safety Fears Held by Caregivers about Relatives with Psychiatric Disorders. Health Soc Work. 2018;43(3): 165–174. pmid:29901709
                                                                            • 152. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. Windsor (UK): NFER-NELSON; 1995. p. 35–37.
                                                                              • 153. Quirk A, Smith S, Hamilton S, Lamping D, Lelliott P, Stahl D, et al. Development of the carer well‐being and support (CWS) questionnaire. Ment Health Rev J. 2012;17(3): 128–138.
                                                                              • 154. Csoboth C, Witt EA, Villa KF, O’Gorman C. The humanistic and economic burden of providing care for a patient with schizophrenia. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015;61(8): 754–761. pmid:25823542
                                                                              • 155. Hauser RM, Sewell WH, Logan JA, Hauser TS, Ryff C, Caspi A, et al. The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study: Adults As Parents And Children At Age 50. IASSIST Q. 1992;16(1–2): 23.
                                                                              • 156. Brodman K. Tests of personality: questionnaires. B. Cornell Medical Index-Health Questionnaire. In Weider A, editor. Contributions Toward Medical Psychology, Theory and Psychodiagnostic Methods. New York (NY): Ronald Press; 1953. p. 568–576.
                                                                                • 157. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26(7): 724–735. pmid:3393032
                                                                                • 158. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6): 473–483. pmid:1593914
                                                                                • 159. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3): 220–233. pmid:8628042
                                                                                • 160. Ali L, Krevers B, Skärsäter I. Caring Situation, Health, Self-efficacy, and Stress in Young Informal Carers of Family and Friends with Mental Illness in Sweden. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015;36(6): 407–415. pmid:26241566
                                                                                • 161. Pakenham KI, Dadds MR, Terry DJ. Relationships between adjustment to HIV and both social support and coping. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(6): 1194–1203. pmid:7860817
                                                                                • 162. Greenberg JS, Seltzer MM, Krauss MW, Chou RJA, Hong J. The effect of quality of the relationship between mothers and adult children with schizophrenia, autism, or down syndrome on maternal well-being: the mediating role of optimism. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2004;74(1): 14–25. pmid:14769105
                                                                                • 163. Department of Health and Ageing. The Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool [Internet]. Canaberra (AU): Australian Government Department of Health; 2010. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/apps-and-tools/the-australian-type-2-diabetes-risk-assessment-tool-ausdrisk.
                                                                                  • 164. Koyanagi A, DeVylder JE, Stubbs B, Carvalho AF, Veronese N, Haro JM, et al. Depression, sleep problems, and perceived stress among informal caregivers in 58 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: A cross-sectional analysis of community-based surveys. J Psychiatr Res. 2018;96: 115–123. pmid:29031131
                                                                                  • 165. Sandin B, Chorot P. Escala de Síntomas Somáticos Revisada (ESS-R) [Somatic Symptom Scale- Revised (ESS-R)]. Madrid (ES): Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia; 1995.
                                                                                    • 166. Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, van Gorp B, Redekop WK. The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(6): 1005–1021. pmid:16900281
                                                                                    • 167. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5): 337–343. pmid:11491192
                                                                                    • 168. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1: 54. pmid:14613568
                                                                                    • 169. Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15(1): 29–38. pmid:1579648
                                                                                    • 170. Herrema R, Garland D, Osborne M, Freeston M, Honey E, Rodgers J. Mental Wellbeing of Family Members of Autistic Adults. J Autism Dev Disord. 2017;47(11): 3589–3599. pmid:28861652
                                                                                    • 171. Angermeyer MC, Kilian R, Matschinger H. WHOQOL-100 und WHOQOL-BREF [WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF]. Göttingen (DE): Hogrefe; 2000.
                                                                                      • 172. Eser E, Fidaner H, Fidaner C, Eser SY, Elbi H, Göker E. WHOQOL-100 ve WHOQOL-BREF’in psikometrik özellikleri [Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF]. Psikiyatri Psikoloji Psikofarmakoloji (3P) Dergisi, 1999;7(Suppl 2): 23–40.
                                                                                      • 173. Hawthorne G, Herrman H, Murphy B. Interpreting the WHOQOL-Brèf: Preliminary Population Norms and Effect Sizes. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77: 37–59.
                                                                                      • 174. Lucas-Carrasco R. The WHO quality of life (WHOQOL) questionnaire: Spanish development and validation studies. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1): 161–165. pmid:21611868
                                                                                      • 175. Tazaki M, Noji A, Nakane Y. WHOQOL. Diagn Ther. 1995;83(12): 2183–2198.
                                                                                      • 176. Koutra K, Triliva S, Roumeliotaki T, Lionis C, Vgontzas AN. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Greek version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales IV Package (FACES IV Package). J Fam Issues. 2013;34(12): 1647–1672.
                                                                                      • 177. Carver MD, Jones WH. The Family Satisfaction Scale. Soc Behav Pers. 1992;20(2): 71–83.
                                                                                      • 178. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1): 71–75. pmid:16367493
                                                                                      • 179. Locke HJ, Wallace KM. Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage Fam Living. 1959;21: 251–255.
                                                                                      • 180. Haynes SN, Floyd FJ, Lemsky C, Rogers E, Winemiller D, Heilman N, et al. The Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons. Psychol Assess. 1992;4(4): 473–482.
                                                                                      • 181. Mak WWS, Cheung RYM. Affiliate Stigma Among Caregivers of People with Intellectual Disability or Mental Illness. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2008;21(6): 532–545.
                                                                                      • 182. Griffiths KM, Christensen H, Jorm AF, Evans K, Groves C. Effect of web-based depression literacy and cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions on stigmatising attitudes to depression: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;185: 342–349. pmid:15458995
                                                                                      • 183. Hawthorne G. Measuring Social Isolation in Older Adults: Development and Initial Validation of the Friendship Scale. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77: 521–548.
                                                                                      • 184. Nojima S. Chronicity and family/patient interaction in a Japanese schizophrenic patient population [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Unpublished Doctor of Nursing Science Dissertation; 1989. https://www.proquest.com/openview/5cbba1f731346fe3b710c933b7617c22/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
                                                                                        • 185. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5): 353–365. pmid:10146874
                                                                                        • 186. Schene AH, van Wijngaarden B. The involvement evaluation questionnaire. Amsterdam (NL): Department of Psychiatry, University of Amsterdam; 1992.
                                                                                          • 187. Schene AH, van Wijngaarden B, Koeter MW. Family caregiving in schizophrenia: domains and distress. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24(4): 609–618. pmid:9853792
                                                                                          • 188. van Wijngaarden B, Schene AH, Koeter M, Vázquez-Barquero JL, Knudsen HC, Lasalvia A, et al. Caregiving in schizophrenia: development, internal consistency and reliability of the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire—European Version. EPSILON Study 4. European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2000;39: s21–27. pmid:10945074
                                                                                          • 189. Corsentino EA, Molinari V, Gum AM, Roscoe LA, Mills WL. Family Caregivers’ Future Planning for Younger and Older Adults With Serious Mental Illness (SMI). J Appl Gerontol. 2008;27(4): 466–485.
                                                                                          • 190. Lohrer SP, Lukens EP, Thorning H. Economic expenditures associated with instrumental caregiving roles of adult siblings of persons with severe mental illness. Community Ment Health J. 2007;43(2): 129–151. pmid:16514475
                                                                                          • 191. Platt S, Weyman A, Hirsch S, Hewett S. The Social Behaviour Assessment Schedule (SBAS): Rationale, contents, scoring and reliability of a new interview schedule. Soc Psychiatry. 1980;15: 43–55.
                                                                                          • 192. Balducci C, Mnich E, McKee KJ, Lamura G, Beckmann A, Krevers B, et al. Negative impact and positive value in caregiving: validation of the COPE index in a six-country sample of carers. Gerontologist. 2008;48(3): 276–286. pmid:18591353
                                                                                          • 193. McKee KJ, Philip I, Lamura G, Prouskas C, Oberg B, Krevers B, et al. The COPE index—a first stage assessment of negative impact, positive value and quality of support of caregiving in informal carers of older people. Aging Ment Health. 2003;7(1): 39–52. pmid:12554314
                                                                                          • 194. Armeli S, Gunthert KC, Cohen LH. Stressor appraisals, coping, and post-event outcomes: The dimensionality and antecedents of stress-related growth. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2001;20(3): 366–395.
                                                                                          • 195. Butzlaff RL, Hooley JM. Expressed emotion and psychiatric relapse: a meta-analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55(6): 547–552. pmid:9633674
                                                                                          • 196. Brown RM, Brown SL. Informal Caregiving: A Reappraisal of Effects on Caregivers. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2014;8(1): 74–102.
                                                                                          • 197. McCubbin M, McCubbin H. Resiliency in families: A conceptual model of family adjustment and adaptation in response to stress and crisis. In: McCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA, editors. Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping and Adaptation (Inventories for Research and Practice). Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin; 1996. p. 1–64.
                                                                                            • 198. Bonanno GA. Resilience in the Face of Potential Trauma. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(3): 135–138.
                                                                                            • 199. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York (NY): Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
                                                                                              • 200. Bulger MW, Wandersman A, Goldman CR. Burdens and gratifications of caregiving: appraisal of parental care of adults with schizophrenia. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1993;63(2): 255–265. pmid:8484431
                                                                                              • 201. Rose LE. Families of psychiatric patients: a critical review and future research directions. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1996;10(2): 67–76. pmid:8935983
                                                                                              • 202. Penn DL, Guynan K, Daily T, Spaulding WD, Garbin CP, Sullivan M. Dispelling the stigma of schizophrenia: what sort of information is best?. Schizophr Bull. 1994;20(3): 567–578. pmid:7973472
                                                                                              • 203. Lee S, Lee MTY, Chiu MYL, Kleinman A. Experience of social stigma by people with schizophrenia in Hong Kong. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;186: 153–157. pmid:15684240
                                                                                              • 204. Perlick D, Clarkin JF, Sirey J, Raue P, Greenfield S, Struening E, et al. Burden experienced by care-givers of persons with bipolar affective disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 1999;175: 56–62. pmid:10621769
                                                                                              • 205. Beentjes TAA, Goossens PJJ, Poslawsky IE. Caregiver burden in bipolar hypomania and mania: a systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(4): 187–197. pmid:23005586
                                                                                              • 206. Hasui C, Sakamoto S, Sugiura T, Miyata R, Fijii Y, Koshiishi F, et al. Burden on family members of the mentally ill: a naturalistic study in Japan. Compr Psychiatry. 2002;43(3): 219–222. pmid:11994841
                                                                                              • 207. van Wijngaarden B, Koeter M, Knapp M, Tansella M, Thornicroft G, Vázquez-Barquero JL, et al. Caring for people with depression or with schizophrenia: are the consequences different?. Psychiatry Res. 2009;169(1): 62–69. pmid:19625087
                                                                                              • 208. Hadryś T, Adamowski T, Kiejna A. Mental disorder in Polish families: is diagnosis a predictor of caregiver’s burden?. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2011;46(5): 363–372. pmid:20309676
                                                                                              • 209. Veltman A, Cameron J, Stewart DE. The experience of providing care to relatives with chronic mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(2): 108–114. pmid:11889365
                                                                                              • 210. Magliano L, Fiorillo A, Rosa C, Maj M, National Mental Health Project Working Group. Family burden and social network in schizophrenia vs. physical diseases: preliminary results from an Italian national study. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2006;429: 60–63. pmid:16445484
                                                                                              • 211. Angermeyer MC, Schulze B, Dietrich S. Courtesy stigma: A focus group study of relatives of schizophrenia patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38: 593–602. pmid:14564387
                                                                                              • 212. Milačić-Vidojević I, Gligorović M, Dragojević N. Tendency towards stigmatization of families of a person with autistic spectrum disorders. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014;60(1): 63–70. pmid:23117824
                                                                                              • 213. Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Miller FE. Blame, shame, and contamination: the impact of mental illness and drug dependence stigma on family members. J Fam Psychol. 2006;20(2): 239–246. pmid:16756399
                                                                                              • 214. Fadden G, Bebbington P, Kuipers L. The burden of care: the impact of functional psychiatric illness on the patient’s family. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150: 285–292. pmid:3311267
                                                                                              • 215. Wittmund B, Wilms HU, Mory C, Angermeyer MC. Depressive disorders in spouses of mentally ill patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37(4): 177–182. pmid:12027244
                                                                                              • 216. Barrowclough C, Tarrier N, Johnston M. Distress, expressed emotion, and attributions in relatives of schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Bull. 1996;22(4): 691–702. pmid:8938922
                                                                                              • 217. Olasoji M, Maude P, McCauley K. Not sick enough: experiences of carers of people with mental illness negotiating care for their relatives with mental health services. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24(6): 403–411. pmid:28499065
                                                                                              • 218. Earley L, Cushway D. The Parentified Child. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;7(2): 163–178.