Family caregiver constructs and outcome measures in neuro-oncology: A systematic review

• Published in: Neuro-oncology practice 2022-12, Vol.9 (6), p.465-474
• Main Authors: Boele, Florien, Hertler, Caroline, Dirven, Linda, Piil, Karin, Sherwood, Paula
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Reviews
• ISSN: 2054-2577; 2054-2585
• DOI: 10.1093/nop/npac058

BackgroundAs a first step to reach consensus on the key constructs and outcomes in neuro-oncology caregiver research, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the constructs that are being evaluated in research studies and how these have been assessed. MethodsAll peer-reviewed publications with primary data reporting on outcomes of family caregivers of adult primary brain tumor patients were eligible. Electronic databases PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Emcare, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched up to September 2021. Using Covidence, title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were done by two researchers independently, with a third guiding consensus. Constructs as reported in each study, and how these were assessed were the primary result. ResultsSearches yielded 1090 unique records, with 213 remaining after title/abstract screening. Of these, 157 publications met inclusion criteria, comprising 120 unique studies. These originated from 18 countries and were published between 1996 and 2022. Most were observational (75%) cross-sectional (61%) studies, reporting on quantitative methods (62%). Twenty-seven different constructs were assessed and mapped along the Caregiver Health Model (CGHM) categories, namely, caregiver health, needs, tasks, beliefs and attitudes, and environment. Seventeen questionnaires were used >2 times to measure the same construct, with the vast majority of questionnaires only used across one or two studies. ConclusionsNeuro-oncology caregiving research is a field gaining traction, but lags behind in clear definition of key constructs, and consistency in assessment of these constructs. Developing consensus or guidance will improve comparability of studies, meta-analyses, and advance the science more quickly.