Caregiving burden of family caregivers of substance‐addicted people in Turkey

Author(s):  
Rukiye Pinar Boluktas
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (23-24) ◽  
pp. 4558-4566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanhong Han ◽  
Yilan Liu ◽  
Xuelin Zhang ◽  
Wilson Tam ◽  
Jing Mao ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 106648072110524
Author(s):  
Rachel R. Tambling ◽  
Carissa D’Aniello ◽  
Beth S. Russell

Caregiver burden describes the physical, psychological, social, and financial demands of providing care to others. Caregiver burden has been investigated in general, and off-time caregiving often specific to chronic, recurring conditions. Despite the substantial research attention to caregiving burden, there have been few studies aimed establishing the psychometric evaluation of measurement tools used to measure the construct ( Pendergrass et al., 2018 ). Accurate measurement of caregiving burden is essential for studying the myriad effects on caregivers’ mental, physical, financial, and relational health. To begin to fill this gap, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers ( Pendergrass et al., 2018 ) in two distinct samples. Results of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated a one factor solution. Implications for these findings on the study of caregiver burden are included.


2021 ◽  
pp. 019394592110411
Author(s):  
Hamide Nur Çevik Özdemir ◽  
Selmin Şenol

Due to the burden of caregiving, family caregivers of children with cancer suffer from physical and psychosocial health problems. The aim of this study was to develop a Caregiving Burden Scale for Family Caregivers of Children with Cancer (CBSFC-CC) and to assess its psychometric properties. A methodological, descriptive study design was conducted. The study sample consisted of 217 family caregivers caring for children with cancer between the ages of 0 and 18 years. The item pool of the scale was created using the Delphi Technique. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall scale was 0.93. The item-total score correlations ranged from 0.424 to 0.645. The exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale explained 68.34% of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis also showed that the factor loadings of the scale ranged from 0.46 to 0.96. NNFI, CFI, and IFI were found to be > 0.90, and RMSEA was found to be < 0.09. The CBSFC-CC was found to be a good multidimensional instrument for evaluating the burden on family caregivers of pediatric cancer patients. It can be used in clinical practice and research. This tool can be considered to tailor interventions aimed at improving caregiver outcomes.


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki FUKAHORI ◽  
Noriko YAMAMOTO-MITANI ◽  
Tomoko SUGIYAMA ◽  
Yuichi SUGAI ◽  
Ichiro KAI

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9580-9580
Author(s):  
S. Kim ◽  
J. Lee ◽  
Y. Yun ◽  
S. Kim ◽  
S. Kim ◽  
...  

9580 Background: This study was aimed to investigate the employment status and work-related difficulties among family caregiver of terminal cancer patients compared with the general population. Methods: A survey was administered to 381 family caregivers of terminal cancer patients at 11hospitals and 994 general populations aged more than 18 years. Results: Family caregivers of terminal cancer patients were female (66.7%) and the patient's spouse (50.9%), with mean age of 46.8years (SD, 13.5). 212(56.1%) were working before cancer diagnosis, however, only 133(36.3%) continued working currently. Compared with the general population, 233(63.7%)family caregivers of terminal cancer patients were more likely to be not working (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] =2.39; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 1.73 to 3.29).Those who continued working reported more easy fatigability (40.6% vs 22.4%) and reduced working hours (20.3% vs 2.1%) than general population. For those doing housework, caregiving itself (56.4%) were identified to be the most common difficulties, followed by easy fatigability (32.3%). Major reasons for not working were providing care to the terminal cancer patients (24.0%). Older age (aOR=10.37; 95%CI=2.80 to 38.41), female sex (aOR=4.28; 95%CI=2.25 to 8.13), lower household income (aOR=2.19; 95%CI=1.19 to 4.06), bearing medical cost by other than spouse (aOR=2.10; 95%CI=1.05 to 4.19), and low performance status of the patients (aOR=2.00; 95%CI=1.01 to 3.95) were significantly associated with not working. Conclusions: When compared to the general population, family caregivers of terminal cancer patients were at risk job loss from their caregiving burden, and caregiving and easy fatigability were the major work-related difficulties. Our study might help make a strategy to reduce job loss for family caregivers' caregiving burden. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document