@article{JansonWillekeZaibertetal.2022,
  author    = {Janson, Patrick and Willeke, Kristina and Zaibert, Lisa and Budnick, Andrea and Bergh{\"o}fer, Anne and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Heuschmann, Peter U. and Zapf, Andreas and Wildner, Manfred and Stupp, Carolin and Keil, Thomas},
  title     = {Mortality, morbidity and health-related outcomes in informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers: a systematic review},
  series = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {1660-4601},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijerph19105864},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-275219},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {A systematic overview of mental and physical disorders of informal caregivers based on population-based studies with good methodological quality is lacking. Therefore, our aim was to systematically summarize mortality, incidence, and prevalence estimates of chronic diseases in informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. Following PRISMA recommendations, we searched major healthcare databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE and Web of Science) systematically for relevant studies published in the last 10 years (without language restrictions) (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020200314). We included only observational cross-sectional and cohort studies with low risk of bias (risk scores 0-2 out of max 8) that reported the prevalence, incidence, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), mean- or sum-scores for health-related outcomes in informal caregivers and non-caregivers. For a thorough methodological quality assessment, we used a validated checklist. The synthesis of the results was conducted by grouping outcomes. We included 22 studies, which came predominately from the USA and Europe. Informal caregivers had a significantly lower mortality than non-caregivers. Regarding chronic morbidity outcomes, the results from a large longitudinal German health-insurance evaluation showed increased and statistically significant incidences of severe stress, adjustment disorders, depression, diseases of the spine and pain conditions among informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. In cross-sectional evaluations, informal caregiving seemed to be associated with a higher occurrence of depression and of anxiety (ranging from 4 to 51\% and 2 to 38\%, respectively), pain, hypertension, diabetes and reduced quality of life. Results from our systematic review suggest that informal caregiving may be associated with several mental and physical disorders. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution, as the cross-sectional studies cannot determine temporal relationships. The lower mortality rates compared to non-caregivers may be due to a healthy-carer bias in longitudinal observational studies; however, these and other potential benefits of informal caregiving deserve further attention by researchers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BeierleSchobelVogeletal.2021,
  author    = {Beierle, Felix and Schobel, Johannes and Vogel, Carsten and Allgaier, Johannes and Mulansky, Lena and Haug, Fabian and Haug, Julian and Schlee, Winfried and Holfelder, Marc and Stach, Michael and Schickler, Marc and Baumeister, Harald and Cohrdes, Caroline and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Deserno, Lorenz and Edler, Johanna-Sophie and Eichner, Felizitas A. and Greger, Helmut and Hein, Grit and Heuschmann, Peter and John, Dennis and Kestler, Hans A. and Krefting, Dagmar and Langguth, Berthold and Meybohm, Patrick and Probst, Thomas and Reichert, Manfred and Romanos, Marcel and St{\"o}rk, Stefan and Terhorst, Yannik and Weiß, Martin and Pryss, R{\"u}diger},
  title     = {Corona Health — A Study- and Sensor-Based Mobile App Platform Exploring Aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic},
  series = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  number    = {14},
  issn      = {1660-4601},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijerph18147395},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242658},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Physical and mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic is typically assessed via surveys, which might make it difficult to conduct longitudinal studies and might lead to data suffering from recall bias. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) driven smartphone apps can help alleviate such issues, allowing for in situ recordings. Implementing such an app is not trivial, necessitates strict regulatory and legal requirements, and requires short development cycles to appropriately react to abrupt changes in the pandemic. Based on an existing app framework, we developed Corona Health, an app that serves as a platform for deploying questionnaire-based studies in combination with recordings of mobile sensors. In this paper, we present the technical details of Corona Health and provide first insights into the collected data. Through collaborative efforts from experts from public health, medicine, psychology, and computer science, we released Corona Health publicly on Google Play and the Apple App Store (in July 2020) in eight languages and attracted 7290 installations so far. Currently, five studies related to physical and mental well-being are deployed and 17,241 questionnaires have been filled out. Corona Health proves to be a viable tool for conducting research related to the COVID-19 pandemic and can serve as a blueprint for future EMA-based studies. The data we collected will substantially improve our knowledge on mental and physical health states, traits and trajectories as well as its risk and protective factors over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and its diverse prevention measures.},
  language  = {en}
}