Obesity has been recognised as an important contributing factor in the development of various diseases, but comparative data on this condition are limited. We therefore aimed to identify and discuss current epidemiological data on the prevalence of obesity in European countries.

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.

Purpose: This study (a) assessed quality of life (QoL) in a patient sample with severe mental illness in an integrated psychiatric care (IC) programme in selected regions in Germany, (b) compared QoL among diagnostic groups and (c) identified socio-demographic, psychiatric anamnestic and clinical characteristics associated with QoL. Methods: This cross-sectional study included severely mentally ill outpatients with substantial impairments in social functioning. Separate dimensions of QoL were assessed with the World Health Organisation’s generic 26-item quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Descriptive analyses and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for the overall sample as well as for diagnostic group. Results: A total of 953 patients fully completed the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. QoL in this sample was lower than in the general population (mean 34.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.8 to 35.5), with the lowest QoL in unipolar depression patients (mean 30.5; 95% CI 28.9 to 32.2) and the highest in dementia patients (mean 53.0; 95% CI 47.5 to 58.5). Main psychiatric diagnosis, living situation (alone, partner/relatives, assisted), number of disease episodes, source of income, age and clinical global impression (CGI) scores were identified as potential predictors of QoL, but explained only a small part of the variation. Conclusion: Aspects of health care that increase QoL despite the presence of a mental disorder are essential for severely mentally ill patients, as complete freedom from the disorder cannot be expected. QoL as a patient-centred outcome should be used as only one component among the recovery measures evaluating treatment outcomes in mental health care.