Does caring for others affect our mental health? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

Costi, Chiara; Hollingsworth, Bruce; O’Sullivan, Vincent; Zucchelli, Eugenio

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115721

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority operationalised unpaid caregiving as a binary variable (care provision versus no care provision), whilst seven studies categorised caregiving in a variety of ways. Two studies categorised carers as new carers or continued/existing carers [ 41 , 46 ], one study had a very broad definition of caregiving [ 46 ], whilst the other restricted their caring exposure to out-of-home caregiving [ 41 ]. One study divided carers into short-term and long-term (>12 months) caregivers [ 44 ], whilst another examined childcare and eldercare separately as well as together (sandwich care) [ 54 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Every included study utilised a validated measure of MH (in line with the review criteria), all of which were self-reported via survey-based instruments. Seven studies examined depression and anxiety as two separate MH outcomes [ 43 , 47 – 49 , 52 , 53 , 60 ], whilst twelve studies examined only depression/physiological distress [ 41 , 42 , 44 – 46 , 50 , 54 – 59 ], and one study examined only anxiety [ 51 ]. A descriptive summary and main findings of included studies (including effect estimates and confidence parameters where reported) can be found in Table 1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, in evaluating the relationship between informal unpaid caregiving and MH in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of evidence was found to be moderate. Five studies were deemed to be at low risk of bias (RoB) [ 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 ], twelve studies at moderate RoB [ 43 , 45 , 49 – 52 , 54 , 56 – 60 ], and three studies rated as high RoB [ 48 , 53 , 55 ]. Domains most likely to dampen quality (limit star allocations) were those relating to non-response, comparability, and temporality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the twenty studies included in this systematic review, the overwhelming majority reported a negative association between care provision during the pandemic and MH. Of the nineteen studies that examined depression/psychological distress as a MH outcome, thirteen studies uniformly reported higher levels of depression/psychological distress amongst caregivers compared to non-carers [ 43 – 45 , 47 – 50 , 52 , 56 – 60 ], whilst one reported a negative association only for new carers (and none for existing carers) [ 41 ], and another only for sandwich care (and none for eldercare or childcare only) [ 54 ]. Two studies reported no association [ 46 , 53 ], whilst two studies reported a decrease in depressive symptoms associated with care provision [ 42 , 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Ervin,

Fleitas Alfonzo,

Taouk

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed additional and specific challenges on the lives and wellbeing of informal unpaid carers. Addressing an important gap in the existing literature, this systematic review (prospectively registered with PROSPERO CRD42022376012) synthesises and evaluates the quantitative evidence examining the association between unpaid caregiving and mental health (compared to non-caring), during the pandemic. Five databases were searched (Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science) from Jan 1, 2020, to March 1, 2023. Population-based, peer-reviewed quantitative studies using any observational design were included, with screening, data extraction and quality assessment (amended NOS) independently conducted by two reviewers. Of the 3,073 records screened, 20 eligible studies (113,151 participants) were included. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. Narrative synthesis was complemented by Effect-direction and Albatross plots (given significant between-study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis). Results indicate that the mental health of informal carers, already poorer pre-COVID compared to non-caregivers, was disproportionally impacted as a result of the pandemic and its associated public health containment measures. This review highlights the vulnerability of this group and should motivate political will and commensurate policies to ensure unpaid caregivers are better supported now, in the medium term, and crucially if, and when, another global public health emergency emerges.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Ervin,

Fleitas Alfonzo,

Taouk

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only one previous paper assessed mental health changes attributed to informal care between 2020 and 2021 in the UK. 11 The study conducted by Costi et al (2023) showed that while the mental health decline of informal carers who provided care to someone outside their households fluctuated across different levels of restrictions, the mental health of informal carers was consistently worse than that of non-carers over the course of the pandemic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of informal care on the mental health of caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Fleitas Alfonzo,

Taouk,

Emerson

et al. 2023

Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Informal care can affect the mental health of caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated many people into informal care. Little is known about the longitudinal effect of informal care throughout the pandemic. We investigate changes in mental health in relation to changes in informal care between July 2020 and September 2021. Methods Using data from Understanding Society, we applied fixed-effects modelling to assess mental health variations associated with changes in caregiving among 13 557 participants (50 430 observations). Hours of weekly care were categorized as 0, 1–19, ≥20. Mental health was measured using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) as a continuous score and a binary indicator. Main analyses were stratified by gender. Results Compared to when delivering 0 hours care/week, the GHQ-12 scores of women providing care for 1–19 hours/week were 0.46 points higher (95%CI: −0.11, 1.09), while their mental health scores were 0.99 higher (95%: 0.08, 1.90) when caring for ≥20 hours/week. Changes on the binary GHQ-12 measure were only evident for women when providing ≥20 hours of weekly care. These changes were not substantial among men. Conclusion Informal care adversely impacted the mental health of women carers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Support programmes for informal carers should focus on alleviating caregiving loads in women.

show abstract

Time value of informal care of people with alzheimer’s disease in Spain: a population-based analysis

2024

Eur J Health Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this paper are to estimate the monetary value of informal care for people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in Spain, to compare results with those obtained in 2008 and to analyse the main determinants of the time of the value of informal care. The Survey on Disabilities, Autonomy and Dependency carried out in Spain in 2020/21 was used to obtain information about disabled individuals with AD and their informal caregivers. Assessment of informal care time was carried out using two alternative approaches: the replacement method, and the contingent valuation method (willingness to pay & willingness to accept). The number of people with AD residing in Spanish households and receiving informal care rose to more than 200,000, representing an increase of 43% compared with 2008. The average number of hours of informal care per week ranged from 86 to 101 h, with an estimated value of between €31,584 - €37,019 per year per caregiver (willingness to accept) or €71,653 - €83,984 per year (replacement). The annual total number of caregiving hours ranged between 896 and 1,061 million hours, representing between 0.52 and 0.62 of GDP in 2021 (willingness to accept) or 1.19–1.40 of GDP (replacement). The level of care needs plays a central role in explaining heterogeneity in estimates. These results should be taken into account by decision-makers for long-term care planning in the coming years.

show abstract

Does caring for others affect our mental health? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited by 11 publications

References 60 publications

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Unpaid caregiving and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review of the quantitative literature

Impact of informal care on the mental health of caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Time value of informal care of people with alzheimer’s disease in Spain: a population-based analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About