Public Health Rev. Public Health Reviews Public Health Rev. 2107-6952 Frontiers Media S.A. 1609718 10.3389/phrs.2026.1609718 Correction Correction: Unveiling the Hidden Challenges: A Systematic Review of Self-Identified Support Needs of Caregivers for Older Adults in Canada Boamah et al. Caregiver Support Needs in Canada Boamah Sheila A. 1 * Herati Hoda 1 Akter Farzana 1 Havaei Farinaz 2 Yous Marie-Lee 1 Kaasalainen Sharon 1 McMaster University School of Nursing, Hamilton, ON, Canada The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Correspondence: Sheila A. Boamah, boamahs@mcmaster.ca 17 03 2026 2026 47 1609718 27 02 2026 02 03 2026 03 03 2026 Copyright © 2026 Boamah, Herati, Akter, Havaei, Yous and Kaasalainen. 2026 Boamah, Herati, Akter, Havaei, Yous and Kaasalainen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. PHR is edited by the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) in a partnership with the Association of Schools of Public Health of the European Region (ASPHER)+ A Correction on Unveiling the Hidden Challenges: A Systematic Review of Self-Identified Caregiver Support Needs for Older Adults in Canada by Boamah SA, Herati H, Akter F, Havaei F, Yous M-L and Kaasalainen S (2026). Public Health Rev. 47:1609117. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2026.1609117 Canada informal care older adults self-identified caregivers support needs

Figure 1 in the published version appears to be improperly formatted. The correctly formatted version of appears below.

PRISMA flowchart diagram of the selection process (Canada, 2025).

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies for a systematic review. Initial database search yielded 3,629 records; 1,371 duplicates were removed, resulting in 2,258 studies screened. After excluding 1,908 studies, 350 underwent eligibility assessment. Of these, 267 were excluded for reasons such as wrong study design or population, leaving 83 studies included in the final review.

In the first published version of the article there was an error. There were residual blinded statements that were not removed prior to publication. These occurred in the Methods section, sub-sections: Selection Process, Data Collection/Extraction Process, and Quality Appraisal (Assessment of Risk of Bias), paragraph 1. Each of these sections contained the statement “(blinded for peer-review)”. These placeholders have been removed.

A correction has been made to Methods, Selection Process. “Three reviewers (HH, FA, MA) independently screened the titles and abstracts of 2258 studies based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. As a result, 1908 studies were excluded, and 350 studies were retrieved for full-text screening, which was conducted independently by the three researchers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, when unresolved cases at the full-text stage adjudicated by the lead researcher (SB).”

A correction has been made to Methods, Data Collection/Extraction Process. “Data extraction was carried out independently by at least two reviewers using Covidence, a widely utilized platform for screening and data extraction in literature reviews.”

A correction has been made to Methods, Quality Appraisal (Assessment of Risk of Bias), Paragraph 1. “The methodological quality of the included qualitative and quantitative studies was assessed by two reviewers (HH, FA) independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools relevant to each study design (17,18).”

The original article has been updated.