ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Caregiving ability assessment tools for family caregivers of disabled older adults: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review and analyze the characteristics, psychometric properties, and application status of caregiving ability assessment tools for family caregivers of disabled older adults, providing an evidence-based reference for clinical and community nursing professionals when selecting appropriate instruments. Methods: Guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the JBI methodology, this scoping review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across nine Chinese and English databases, including CNKI, CBM, VIP, Wanfang Data, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase, with the search timeframe ranging from database inception to October 19, 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and summarized relevant information. Results: We included 25 articles encompassing 21 assessment tools (4 generic and 17 disease-specific). Assessment frameworks have notably shifted from early unidimensional subjective evaluations to multidimensional structures. The most dominant assessed domains include disease-specific knowledge, practical caregiving skills, psychosocial competencies, and resource utilization. While most instruments rely on Likert-type self-reports and demonstrate adequate internal consistency, structural validity and measurement error reporting are frequently limited. Conclusion: A diverse array of caregiving ability assessment tools exists globally, yet methodological heterogeneity and fragmented disease-specific designs limit broad comparability. Future tool development would benefit from robust theoretical grounding, multi-center longitudinal validation, and modular architectures (e.g., PROMIS-inspired). Implementing tiered assessment strategies can optimally balance evaluation rigor with clinical feasibility, ultimately supporting international healthy aging initiatives and targeted caregiver interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.