Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 1;53:101711. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101711

Table 3.

Effect direction plot.36

Study Risk of bias Caregiving exposure (compared to no care) Effect measure All (non-sex stratified) Women Men
Bijnsdorp (2022)37 Moderate Binary B
Lacey (2019)39 Moderate Categorical (long term 3+ yrs. and intermittent caring) B ◂▸
Choi (2006)40 Moderate Categorical (biological parent and spousal care) B
Hajek (2018)38 Moderate Binary B ◂▸
Cameron (2008)41 Serious Binary B ◂▸
Mohanty (2019)46 Serious Binary B
Stratmann (2021)48 Serious Categorical (caregiving that limits carers life) OR
Turgeman-Lupo (2020)49 Serious Categorical (sandwich carers; children and elders) B
Heger (2017)44 Serious Categorical (any frequency) B
Hirst (2005)45 Serious Categorical (caregiving for 10-19hrs per wk./>20 hrs per wk.) OR ◂▸
Oshio (2018)47 Serious Binary B
Chesley (2006)42 Serious Binary B
Ferrerira (2017)43 Serious Binary OR

Key

Effect measure used: B = coefficient of linear regression; OR = odds ratio.

Effect direction: upward arrow ▴= positive mental health impact; downward arrow ▾= negative mental health impact; sideways arrow ◂▸= no change/mixed effects/conflicting findings.