Home › Research › Caregiving
Differences Between Caregivers and Noncaregivers in Psychological Health and Physical Health: A Meta-Analysis
Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Psychology and Aging, 2003-06
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This meta-analysis pooled 84 studies comparing family caregivers to demographically similar non-caregivers on stress, depression, well-being, physical health, and self-efficacy. It found caregivers fare meaningfully worse psychologically, and dementia caregivers specifically show larger gaps than caregivers of people with other conditions.
Key findings
- Caregivers showed higher depression (effect size g=0.58), higher stress (g=0.55), lower self-efficacy (g=0.54), and lower general well-being (g=-0.40) than non-caregivers
- Physical health was also worse for caregivers, but the effect was small (g=0.18)
- Gaps between caregivers and non-caregivers were larger specifically for dementia caregivers than for other caregiver groups
Why it matters
Across 84 studies, family caregivers had higher depression and stress and lower well-being and self-efficacy than non-caregivers, with worse physical health showing only a small effect. Gaps were larger specifically for dementia caregivers than for other caregiver groups.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Effect sizeDepression g=0.58; stress g=0.55; self-efficacy g=-0.54; well-being g=-0.40; physical health g=0.18
- Evidence strengthHigh
Limitations
The total pooled participant count across the 84 studies is not reported in the available summary; effect sizes vary widely by outcome measure and study quality.
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychology and Aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 37 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Differences Between Caregivers and Noncaregivers in Psychological Health and Physical Health: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology and Aging.
Vancouver
Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Differences Between Caregivers and Noncaregivers in Psychological Health and Physical Health: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology and Aging. 2003. PMID: 12825775.
BibTeX
@article{pinquart2003-c8319e3f,
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},
pmid = {12825775}
}
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.