Quality of life of family caregivers 5 years after a relative's cancer diagnosis: follow-up of the national quality of life survey for caregivers.
ABSTRACT Although cancer has been considered as a chronic disease for those diagnosed, the long-term impact of cancer on the family caregivers' quality of life (QOL) remains unknown. Thus, the current study aimed: (a) to characterize family caregivers of cancer survivors, (b) to describe the multidimensional aspects of QOL of family caregivers of cancer survivors, and (c) to identify demographic and caregiving experience factors that may play significant roles in the caregivers' QOL around 5 years after the relative's initial diagnosis. Methods. A total of 1218 caregivers participated in the 5-year follow-up nationwide QOL Survey for Caregivers. Demographics and caregiving experiences were measured 2 years post-diagnosis of their relative's cancer. Multidimensional aspects of QOL were assessed, including mental and physical health, psychological adjustment, and spirituality at 5 years post-diagnosis.
Three groups of caregivers were identified: former caregivers due to the recipients being in remission, former caregivers whose recipients were deceased, and current caregivers. Current caregivers reported worst levels of QOL. Bereaved caregivers reported lower levels of psychological and spiritual adjustment than former caregivers whose recipients were in remission. In addition, caregivers' age and stress were consistent predictors of QOL across three caregiver groups at 5 years post-diagnosis.
The findings help to increase evidence-based awareness of the long-term impact of cancer on the family caregivers' QOL. Findings also have implications for developing programs, whereby family caregivers in the various phases of caregivership will benefit by improving their QOL.
- SourceAvailable from: Derek Milne[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent research into positive experiences in caregivers has begun to redress the traditional focus on negative aspects of caregiving experiences. This exploratory study used a cognitive-behavioural approach - namely, the transactional stress model (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) - to investigate associations between appraisals, coping, and gains over a 6-week period in a small sample (N = 4; case series) design involving stroke caregivers. Analysis involved visual inspection of graphs, supported by descriptive statistics, and co-variation analysis. Participants reported high levels of positive experiences, and these increased over the study period, a previously unreported trend. The study also found individual differences in the interactions between appraisal, coping, and caregiving gain variables, findings explained by the transactional stress model. Implications for clinical practice and future research are addressed.Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 02/2009; 37(1):95-114. DOI:10.1017/S1352465808005055 · 1.69 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract. Background and aim: The literature on cancer patients agrees that most of the cancer patients’ needs often remain unmet. How are these different needs perceived by patients, relatives and professionals? The present research has tried to make a contribution by analysing evidences of the needs, especially unmet, that different actors attribute to a cancer patient. Method: A total of 42 Italian participants (76.2% women) took part in the study. Patients, relatives, physicians, nurses, social care assistants and volunteers participated separately in six focus groups. Three face-to-face interviews were conducted with psychologist, general practitioner and social worker. All focus groups/interviews were processed through an analysis of thematic content. Results: The results showed a priority given to the need for information, and also the importance of psychological and social support needs, confirming that they remain unmet. Differences between participants are visible by looking at the needs cited more frequently. For example, the oncologists are more sensitive to information needs related to the illness and its treatment, while the social worker cited the need for social, economic and legal assistance more frequently. The nurses highlighted the need for continuity of care, and the psychologists underlined the importance of psychological support, while the relatives cited the need of support both from and for families. Conclusions: Results suggested that a comprehensive approach that addresses medical and psychosocial factors is needed. Cancer patients must be provided with a multidisciplinary survivorship care plan that addresses information related to their long-term care and identifies available psychological and social services.Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis 09/2014; Volume 85 / Suppl. 3(Health Professional Issue (I-2014)):41-50.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Examine the psychometric properties of the Appraisal of Caregiving Scale (ACS). Data were collected as part of the FOCUS Program trial in Michigan (N=484 caregivers). Exploratory factor analysis found the ACS measured Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals. Cronbach's alphas for all subscales exceeded 0.70. Construct validity analyses indicated the Threat subscale correlated significantly with concepts of avoidant coping, burden, and dyadic support (r>0.30). General Stress correlated significantly with burden (r=0.348) and dyadic support (r=-0.373), and the Benefit subscale correlated significantly with active coping (r=0.444). Known group analyses indicated that depressed caregivers had higher Threat and General Stress scores than non-depressed caregivers. Also, younger caregivers reported significantly higher scores on the General Stress subscale than older caregivers. Predictive validity analyses found appraisal scores at baseline accounted for 33.3% of the variance in hopelessness and 27.8% of the variance in depression at Time 2. The ACS is a reliable measure of Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals, with some support for its validity. Health professionals may find the ACS useful for guiding intervention development. Future research should continue to examine the ACS' validity. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.Patient Education and Counseling 01/2015; 98(5). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2015.01.009 · 2.60 Impact Factor