The challenge of identifying family carers in general practice at an early stage and measuring their burden: A scoping review of possible tools and their actual use.

Informal care, provided unpaid by family members or friends is a crucial source for providing care at home due to chronic illnesses, disability, or long-lasting health issues. An increasing burden on informal carers largely determines the already proven negative mental and physical health effects. General practitioners are usually responsible for recognizing the effects of persistent burdens on informal carers at an early stage to maintain a functional caring relationship by providing individual support.

Instruments in general practice to identify and to measure (over)burden due to informal care for caring relatives: a scoping review protocol.

Introduction: Family caregivers provide by far the largest share of long-term, unpaid care for their primarily elderly and chronically ill relatives or friends. This is associated with a higher risk of psychological and physical overload for the caregivers due to the persistently high time, financial and emotional burden.Recognising the effects of persistent burden on caring relatives at an early stage significantly contributes to the appropriate coordination of available resources and mediation of individual support to maintain a functional caring relationship without excessive demands.

[Caring relatives in General practice-General practitioners' perspectives and solution approaches].

Background: General practitioners are usually responsible for the early detection of burden due to informal care and the coordination of adequate measures. Their individual perspectives and approaches for identifying and supporting caregiving relatives have hardly been examined yet.

Objective: The study therefore examined subjective perspectives of general practitioners regarding the identification and care of family caregivers in general practitioners' practices.

Finding common (research) ground between general practitioners and neuroscientists: the vital role of knowledge circulation in closing the evidence-to-practice gap.

Background: It may take 15 years or longer before research evidence is integrated into clinical practice. This evidence-to-practice gap has deleterious effects on patients as well as research and clinical processes. Bringing clinical knowledge into the research process, however, has the potential to close the evidence-to-practice gap.