Back

Health and economic impact of caregiving on informal caregivers of people with chronic diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review

Kisangala, E.; Mbivnjo, E. L.; Webb, E. J.; Barrett, B.; Rukundo, G. Z.; Namisango, E.; Heslin, M.

2024-05-25 public and global health
10.1101/2024.05.24.24307869 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWith a disproportionate burden of chronic diseases and severe shortage of health workers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the region implicitly relies on informal caregivers (ICGs) to support the patients both within and outside the health facilities. The aim of this review is to explore the health and economic impact of caregiving on ICGs of patients with chronic diseases in SSA. MethodsMedline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Global Health and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to identify original articles that considered the economic and/or health impacts of caregiving in SSA. The results from the included studies were synthesised narratively. ResultsAfter screening 4,372 articles, 47 were included for synthesis. The articles were from all sub-regions of SSA with more than half (25/47) of the articles focussing on caregivers for patients with cancer. Although the primary motivation for becoming caregivers was love and responsibility, the caring responsibilities described in twenty articles, had profound effects on the caregivers lives. Healthwise, ICGs experienced changes in their physical and mental health like developing musculoskeletal problems and depression. Economically, caregiving was expensive, and financially draining. The opportunity cost of caregiving included loss of jobs, loss of income, foregoing planned important activities and missed education opportunities. ConclusionICGs reported a range of mainly negative health and economic effects of the work they do. Health care systems should consider how to better support ICGs in terms of their own physical and mental wellbeing and governments should consider how to better financially support ICGs.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.