Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Providing care for a frail older adult has been described as a stressful experience that may erode psychological well-being and physical health of caregivers. In this meta-analysis, the authors integrated findings from 84 articles on differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in perceived stress, depression, general subjective well-being, physical health, and self-efficacy. The largest differences were found with regard to depression (g = .58), stress (g = .55), self-efficacy (g = .54), and general subjective well-being (g = -.40). Differences in the levels of physical health in favor of noncaregivers were statistically significant, but small (g = .18). However, larger differences were found between dementia caregivers and noncaregivers than between heterogeneous samples of caregivers and noncaregivers. Differences were also influenced by the quality of the study, relationship of caregiver to the care recipient, gender, and mean age of caregivers.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychology and aging. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250

Vancouver

Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychology and aging. 2003. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250. PMID: 12825775.

BibTeX

@article{pinquart2003-12825775,
  author  = {Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S.},
  title   = {{Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Psychology and aging},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250},
  pmid    = {12825775},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

Pooling 84 articles, this 2003 meta-analysis found caregivers of frail older adults differed most from noncaregivers in depression (g = .58), stress (g = .55), self-efficacy (g = .54) and well-being (g = -.40). Physical health was worse than in noncaregivers by a statistically significant but small margin (g = .18). Gaps were larger for dementia caregivers than for mixed caregiver samples, and also varied with study quality, the caregiver's relationship to the person cared for, gender and age. These are group differences, not proof that caregiving caused them.

Study details

How this study scored 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 7 of 7; Citations per year 5 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 4 of 6; Still being cited 4 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. Total 66 of 100.66 of 100 points earned34 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychology and aging)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Psychology and Aging: journal h-index 243 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited 7 / 7 Cited 2,843 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 5 / 5 113.7 citations a year over 25 year(s) since 2003
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 3.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 4 / 6 Cited by 46 other studies in this library
Still being cited 4 / 4 Cited 455 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Silvia Sörensen: h-index 39 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 University of Rochester: institution h-index 1,195 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12825775)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total 66 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

46 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Caregiving

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →