Topical review A systematic review of caregiver burden following stroke H. Rigby1,2, G. Gubitz1,2, and S. Phillips1,2
Abstract Caregiver burden following stroke is increasingly recognised as a significant health care concern. A growing number of studies have evaluated the patient, caregiver, and social support factors that contribute to increased caregiver burden. We conducted a systematic review of this literature to guide future research. A search of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases (up to July 2008) and reference sections of published studies using a structured search strategy yielded 24 relevant articles. Studies were included if they evaluated predictors and/or correlates of caregiver burden in the setting of stroke. The prevalence of caregiver burden was 25–54% and remained elevated for an indefinite period following stroke. In studies that evaluated independent baseline predictors of subsequent caregiver burden, none of the factors reported were consistent across studies. In studies that assessed concurrent factors independently contributing to caregiver burden in the poststroke period, patient characteristics and social support factors were inconsistently reported. Several studies identified caregiver mental health and the amount of time and effort required of the caregiver as significant determinants of caregiver burden. Our findings highlight the need for more research to identify caregivers in need of support and guide the development and implementation of appropriate interventions to offset caregiver burden.
Key words: caregivers, prevention, risk factors, stroke, stroke care, stroke outcome
Correspondence: Heather Rigby, Division of Neurology, Dalhousie University, Halifax Infirmary, 1796 Summer Street, Room 3383, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H3A7. Tel: 1902 431 3302; Fax: 1902 473 4438; e-mail:
[email protected] 1 Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada 2 Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada Conflict of interest: None.
Introduction Stroke is a leading cause of persistent disability and handicap (1). Stroke survivors experience significant functional limitations resulting from decreased mobility, cognitive impairment, depression, and personality changes (2). The considerable psychosocial impact of stroke extends to family members and other unpaid caregivers. Informal caregivers play a pivotal role in maintaining stroke survivors in the community (3, 4) but this often comes at a substantial personal cost. Many caregivers experience adverse health effects as a result of caring for stroke survivors. caregiving has been linked to higher rates of depression (5, 6), anxiety (4, 7), cardiovascular disease (8), general ill-health (5), and mortality (9). Caregivers, in general, have a poorer quality of life (10) and greater restraints in their social activities (4, 7). The health consequences of providing care to stroke survivors have important implications for patient well-being. Stroke recovery is optimised if the family is healthy and supportive (11). Individuals at home experience less handicapped than those living in institutional care (12) and supportive family is an important factor in enabling stroke patients to remain in the community (3). Caregiver burden is a term used to describe the weight or load carried by caregivers as a result of adopting the caregiving role. It can be further distinguished by considering subjective and objective burden. Objective burden refers to the physical assistance provided by caregivers in the form of caregiving tasks that are performed. Subjective burden refers to the psychological, social, and emotional impact on caregivers as a consequence of objective burden (13). A number of studies have considered how patient, caregiver, and support characteristics contribute to both subjective caregiver burden in the context of stroke, but these critical contributions to our understanding have not been systematically evaluated and summarised. The objective of this article is to identify determinants of caregiver burden following stroke through a systematic review and analysis of the existing literature. A computer search of the MEDLINE database was conducted using the MeSH terms, ‘cerebrovascular disorders’ and ‘caregivers’ and the words ‘burden’, and/or ‘strain.’ Our search
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
285
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
yielded 119 articles. The terms ‘stroke’ and ‘caregiver burden’ were entered into the CINAHL database (207 articles); ‘cerebrovascular accidents’ and ‘caregiver burden’ were used in PsycINFO (95 articles); and ‘stroke’ and ‘caregiver’ and ‘burden’ were used in EMBASE (92 articles). Studies were included if they were published before July 2008, evaluated caregiver burden or strain as a dependent variable, and specifically assessed caregivers of stroke survivors. Reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and empirical studies that focused on topics other than caregiver burden or strain in caregivers of stroke patients were excluded from the review. The abstracts and, if necessary, the full texts were reviewed by a single reviewer who found that 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. A careful review of the reference sections yielded one additional study (3). Twenty-four studies were reviewed. The sample size, design, time period studied, relationship of caregivers to patients, outcomes examined, and key findings are outlined in Table 1.
Instruments to assess caregiver burden/strain Nine different instruments were used to measure caregiver burden in the 24 studies (Table 2). The instruments most frequently used: Caregiver Strain Index (CSI, n 5 8), Relatives Stress Scale (RSS, n 5 4), Caregiver Burden Scale (n 5 3), and Sense of Competence Questionnaire (n 5 4). Other instruments included: Caregiver Burden Inventory (n 5 1), Caregivers Reaction Assessment (n 5 1), Zarit Burden Interview (n 5 2), Self-Rated Burden Scale (SRB, n 5 1), and Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale (n 5 1). Several studies used more than one instrument. Most of the instruments have been evaluated for internal consistency through calculation of the coefficient of reliability (Cronbach’s a) (Table 2).
Prevalence of caregiver burden Seven of the 24 studies reviewed, evaluated the prevalence of caregiver burden (14–20). The proportion of caregivers experiencing significant burden ranged from 25% (moderate or considerable burden on nine or more items on the RSS) (14, 18) to 54% (total score on the CSI46) (15). Three studies reported the changes in prevalence of significant caregiver burden over time. Bugge et al. (16) demonstrated that 25% of caregivers were under significant burden at 1 month, 28% at 3 months, and 37% at 6 months. The other two studies did not show an increase in prevalence of burden with time. Isle et al. (20) reported rates of 28%, 31%, and 29% at 2, 4, and 6 months, respectively, while Tooth et al. (19) reported 44% of caregivers under considerable burden at 6 months and 42% at 12 months.
286
Baseline predictors of caregiver burden A number of studies have evaluated the potential factors that correlate with caregiver burden poststroke. Some of the studies consider antecedent variables such as patient and caregiver demographics. However, few studies have specifically assessed factors at the time of the stroke that may contribute to subsequent caregiver burden. Three studies addressed baseline predictors of burden. In a study of 187 caregivers of stroke survivors, Visser-Meily et al. (15) found that the patients’ functional dependency (measured by Barthel Index) and caregiver depressive symptoms (measured by the Goldberg Depression Scale) were the only significant predictors at admission of caregiver burden at 1 year. In this study, patients’ cognitive status (measured by the MMSE) was not predictive of subsequent burden. In contrast, Thommessen et al. (14) found that impaired cognitive function (also defined by MMSE score) was the only baseline patient characteristic predictive of caregiver burden at 6 months. In that study, score on the Barthel Index was not associated with subsequent burden. Bugge et al. (16) found that better motor function at stroke onset (measured by the Glasgow Coma Scale) and continence within 7 days of stroke onset were associated with less caregiver strain at 6 months.
Poststroke determinants of caregiver burden Evidence is mixed with respect to concurrent factors associated with caregiver burden. A number of studies have analysed patient and caregiver variables to determine those that contribute to burden (summarised in Table 3). Only those factors identified by multivariate regression analyses are included in this summary. Four longitudinal studies evaluated the contribution of factors at different time points poststroke (10, 16, 19, 20). In those studies, a variable may have been correlated at one time point but not at another. In such instances, both results are recorded in the table.
Patient characteristics A conflicting picture emerges with respect to the impact of functional outcomes on caregiver burden. Eight studies found a positive relationship between poor functional status and caregiver burden (16, 19–25), whereas, six found no significant association (10, 16, 18, 21, 26, 27). Similarly, there is disagreement in the literature over whether patient age, gender, cognitive impairment, and mental health are correlated with increased caregiver burden (Table 3).
Caregiver characteristics Among caregivers, age and gender are generally shown to be unrelated to increased caregiver burden. Evidence is mixed with respect to the importance of caregiver relationship to patients. Poor mental health [general measures (21, 24, 28) depressive symptoms (10, 25, 27), anxiety (10, 25)] and the amount of caregiving provided (16, 17, 21, 25, 28, 29) are consistently
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
Table 1 Summary of studies examining caregiver burden or strain in caregivers of stroke survivors
Study
Sample size, n
Time from stroke
Isle et al. (20) Brussels, Belgium
90
2, 4, 6 months
Draper and Brocklehurst (32) Hull, UK
44
Variable (up to 12 months)
Grabowska-Fudala and Jaracz (36) Poland
30
6 months
Tiegs et al. (35) Florida, USA Choi-Kwon et al. (25) Seoul, Korea
178
Variable
154
Variable (1–5 years)
McCullagh et al. (10) London, UK
232
3 months, 1 year
Tooth et al. (19) 71 (6 months) Queensland, Australia 57 (12 months)
6 months, 12 months
van Exel et al. (17) Amsterdam, the Netherlands
6 months
145
Visser-Meily et al. (15) 187 Hoensbroek, the Netherlands Chumbler et al. (27) 102 Gainesville, USA
1 year
1 month
Kao and McHugh (23) 147 North Carolina, USA Morimoto et al. (31) 100 Hiroshima Ken, Japan
Variable
Bakas and Burgener 104 (28) Indiana, USA
Variable
Tang and Chen (26) Taipei, Taiwan
Variable
Thommessen et al. (18) Oslo, Norway Morimoto et al. (29) Hiroshima, Japan
Thommessen et al. (14) Oslo, Norway
134
36
100
68
Variable
6 months
Variable
6 months
Major outcomes examined
Key findings
Patients: function (RMA, BI, OHS, NEADL, Patients’ age and activity level are important MRS, SIP), QoL (EQ-5D), mental health (HADS) predictors of strain in the sub-acute phase Caregiver: burden (CSI) but patients’ participation level becomes more important with time Patients: functional disability (BI), speech Caregiver strain was not correlated with Caregivers: burden (CSI) patients’ degree of functional disability but was correlated with speech-affected patients (univariate analysis) Patients: none Burden was determined mainly by careCaregivers: burden (CBS), emotional status giver’s internal factors (anxiety, depression, (HADS), coping (SOC), social support (BSSS) sense of coherence) but not by external factors (social support) (univariate analysis) Caregivers: burden (SCQ), gender Female caregivers reported higher CGB (univariate analysis) Patients: function (MRS), cognition (MMSE), Higher caregiver burden was associated with depression (DSM-IV) greater patient functional disability and deCaregivers: burden (SCQ), health status (self- pressive symptoms. Caregiver factors affectrated global health item), mental health ing burden were anxiety, depression, and (HADS) unemployment Patients: function (BI and mRS), mental health Caregiver burden was associated with poor (HADS), QOL (EQ5D/VAS) patient and caregiver mental health Caregivers: burden (CBS), QOL (EQ-5D/VAS), emotional status (HADS) Patients: cognition (FIM), function (FIM), Poorer patient mental health was associated health status (SF-36) with higher strain. Caregiver employment Caregivers: burden (CSI, CBI), time spent and high perceived quality of support correcaring, health status (SF-36) lated with increased strain Patients: function (BI), health-related Increased caregiver burden was inversely QOL (EurQol-5D) correlated with patients’ and caregivers’ Caregivers: burden (CSI and SRB) health-related QoL. Higher burden was associated with more caregiving tasks and younger patients. Patients: function (BI), cognition (MMSE) Caregiver burden was highly correlated with Caregivers: burden (CSI), depression (GDS2), caregiver depression and low life satisfaclife satisfaction (LiSat-9) tion. Patients: depression (GDS), function (FIM) Higher burden was associated with greater Caregivers: burden (SCQ), coping (SOC), caregiver depressive symptoms. depression (GDS) Patients: ADLs, cognition, frequency of falls Poorer patient functional status was assoCaregivers: burden (CBS – CV) ciated with higher burden. Patients: function (BI) Increased caregiver burden was significantly Caregivers: burden (ZBI), health-related QoL correlated with decreased health-related (SF-12), depression (GDS1) quality of life. Patients: cognition (CSS), Predictors of poor caregiving outcomes were Caregivers: burden (CBS, BCOS), self-esteem emotional distress, low benefit appraisal, (SES), emotional status (POMS), health (SF-36), high task difficulty, and high threat appraiappraisal of caregiving (ACS) sal. Patients: function (BI) Spousal caregivers who rated their health as Caregivers: strain (CRA), self-efficacy (CSE), poor had higher levels of strain. social support (PRQ-85), health status (HPLP-II) Patients: function (BI), cognition (MMSE) Cognitive impairment of the patient was the Caregivers: burden (RSS) only variable that had a significant association with higher caregiver burden. Patients: function (BI) Hours per day of caregiving was significantly Caregivers: Burden (ZBI), duration of related to caregiver burden. caregiving, hours/day of caregiving, presence of respite Patients: function (BI, SMES), cognition Cognitive impairment was the only baseline (MMSE) patient characteristic predictive of subseCaregivers: burden (RSS) quent caregiver burden.
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
287
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
Table 1 Continued
Study Blake and Lincoln (24) Nottingham, UK
Sample size, n
Time from stroke
96
Variable
Jones et al. (22) 81 Sheffield, South Yorkshire van den Heuvel et al., 212 2001 (40) Groningen, the Netherlands
Variable
Bugge et al. (16) Glasgow, Scotland
110
1, 3, 6 months
Scholte op Reimer (21) 115 Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3 years
Elmstahl et al. (34) Jonkoping, Sweden
35
3 years
Draper et al. (3) Sydney, Australia
48
Variable
Variable
Major outcomes examined
Key findings
Patients: mood (GHQ-12), function (EADL) Caregivers: burden (CSI), mood (GHQ-12), emotional status (PANAS)
Strain was highly correlated with negative affectivity of caregivers, carer mood, and carer’s perception of patient’s functional status. Patients: function (BI), mental status (HADS) More caregiver stress was associated with Caregivers: stress (RSS) older age patient, greater disability, and patients’ depressive symptoms. Patients: health status (Schure), function (SIP) Stroke severity and the cognitive, emotional, Caregivers: strain (CSI), health status (SF-36) and behavioral consequences of stroke were highly correlated with caregiver strain. Younger caregivers and those less satisfied with social support experienced greater strain. Patient: function (BI), cognition (MMSE), Increased caregiver strain was correlated health status (SF-36), neurologic impairment with the amount of time spent caring and (CNS) poorer caregiver health. Caregivers: burden (CSI), health status (SF-36) Patients: function (BI, FAI, MRS) Higher level of burden was associated with Caregivers: burden (SCQ), QOL (COOP charts), patient disability and caregivers’ emotional loneliness (LQ), functional status (FAI) distress, loneliness, disability, and time spent providing care. Patients: function (AI and KI), mental status Caregiver burden was correlated with paand personality (EPI), QOL (LGC) tients’ personality (extroversion), depressed Caregivers: burden (CBS) mood, and low quality of life (univariate analysis). Patients: function (BI), mental health (BMDQ) No significant difference was observed beCaregivers: burden (RSS), health status (CHS), tween level of burden in caregivers of stroke QOL (QLQ and LSQ) and demented patients. Caregiver burden was correlated with poor mental health and low life satisfaction (univariate analysis).
ACS, Appraisal of Caregiving Scale; AI, Activity Index; BCOS, Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale; BMDQ, Behavior and Mood Disturbance Questionnaire; BSSS, Berlin Social Support Scale; CBI, Caregiver Burden Index (24 item); CBS, Caregiver Burden Scale; CBS-CV, Caregiver Burden Scale – Chinese Version; CHS, Caregiver Health Scale; CRA, Caregiver Reactions Assessment; CSE, Caregiver Self-Efficacy; CSI, Caregiver Strain Index; DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; EADL, Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale; EPI, Eysenck Personality Inventory; EQ-5D, 5D Euroqol; EQ-VAS, Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale; FAI, Frenchay Activities Index; FIM, Functional Independence Measure; GDS1, Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form, 15-item; GDS2, Goldberg Depression Scale; GHQ-12, General Health Questionnaire, 12-item; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HPLP-II, Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II; KI, Katz ADL Index; LiSat-9, Life Satisfaction Checklist; LGQ, Life Goals Questionnaire; LSQ, Life Satisfaction Questionnaire; LQ, Loneliness Questionnaire; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MRS, Modified Rankin Score; NEADL, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; POMS, Profile of Mood States Short Form; QLQ, Quality of Life Questionnaire; RSS, Relatives Stress Scale; RMA, Rivermead Motor Assessment; SCQ, Sense of Competence Questionnaire; SES, Self-Esteem Scale; SF36, 36-item Short Form Health Survey; SIP, Sickness Impact Profile; SMES, Sodring Motor Evaluation of Stroke; SOC, Sense of Coherence questionnaire; SRB, Self-Rated Burden Scale; ZBI, Zarit Burden Interview.
linked with increased burden. However, duration of caregiving is not shown to be a significant correlate (26). Caregiver training has been shown to alleviate caregiver burden in one study (10); other studies suggest that increased family and social support does not (10, 19, 27). The relative contributions of poor self-rated health, functional disability, income, and employment to caregiver burden are unclear (Table 3).
was significantly correlated with psychological morbidity in caregivers of both dementia and stroke patients (3). In the other study, a lower cognitive function in the patient was associated with high burden in spouses of patients with stroke and Parkinson’s disease. In the dementia group, significantly higher burden was identified in caregivers who were female spouses (18).
Discussion Caregiving and chronic disease Two studies compared caregivers of stroke patients with other caregivers in order to understand the disease-specific impact of stroke on the caregiving experience. In one study, caregiver burden
288
Methodological critique These studies make valuable contributions to our understanding of a serious and widespread health care concern. However,
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
Table 2 Operational definitions and internal consistency values reported by the developers of caregiver burden/strain instruments utilized in the studies
Instrument
Format
Subscales
Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale (33) Caregiver Strain Index (41) Caregiver Burden Scale (34)
15-item
None
13-item, each scored yes ( 5 1) or no ( 5 0)ss 22-item, four-point scale (1–4)
None (1) General strain (2) Isolation (3) Disappointment (4) Emotional involvement (5) Environment (1) Satisfaction with care recipient (2) Satisfaction with caregiving performance (3) Impact on personal life None (1) Personal distress (2) Life upset (3) Negative feelings (1) Esteem (2) Lack of family support (3) Impact on finances (4) Impact on schedule (5) Impact on health (1) Personal strain (2) Role strain None
Sense of Competence Questionnaire (42)
27-item, four-point scale (1–4)
Relatives Stress Scale (43) Caregiver Burden Inventory (44)
15-item, five-point scale (0–4) 24-item, five-point scale (0–4)
Caregiver Reaction Assessment (45)
24-item, five-point scale (1–5)
Zarit Burden Interview (46)
22-item, five-point scale (0–4)
Self-Rated Burden Scale (47)
Single question scored on visual analogue scale
a number of methodological concerns limit the general application of these findings at this point in time. The inconsistent results reported by the studies reviewed highlight the need for more definitive data on a critical topic in stroke management.
Selection bias Selection bias is a major limitation in the majority of studies examined. Caregivers who were more highly motivated and in better health themselves may have been more likely to participate. Only three studies performed a statistical comparison of the participants and nonparticipants (17, 19, 21). In each case, characteristics of the consenting and nonconsenting patients were compared and no significant differences were found. However, differences in the characteristics of the caregivers, if present, may have influenced the results. In studies that performed serial outcome measurements, caregivers were excluded if the care recipients died or were placed in long-term care facilities during the interval. These caregivers may have been more physically and emotionally burdened resulting in an underestimation of caregiver burden. Sampling bias Many of the studies in this review examined a selected population of stroke patients and caregivers. As a result, data may not be representative of an elderly stroke population with respect to socio-demographic variables and functional status.
Cronbach’s a (instrument total or subscale range) 089 086 056–087
083
072–088 073–085
080–090
Not available Not available
Thirteen studies restricted the study population to caregivers of stroke survivors living at home (3, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30–33), five also included informal caregivers of patients living in institutions (16, 17, 23, 25, 34), and three studies looked exclusively at caregivers of patients admitted to rehabilitation centre (10, 15, 20). Three studies did not specify the patients’ living situation (29, 35, 36). Stroke survivors living at home are less likely to be severely disabled and, therefore, caregiver burden may be underestimated (12). Furthermore, patient functional status may be a more significant determinant of burden in studies that examine caregivers of severely disabled patients. Some study populations are defined by specific cultural or demographic characteristics. One study examined caregivers of veterans who are disproportionately male (27). Four studies were conducted in the Netherlands where the majority of stroke patients have a low socio-economic status (30) and 70% of all stroke patients are admitted to hospital (37). Two studies were conducted in Taiwan where most stroke survivors are cared for at home by family members (23, 26).
Publication bias It is difficult to quantify the impact of publication bias on the results of our systematic review. Language bias was minimised by searching for articles published in languages other than English. We found several studies reporting positive and negative correlations between the same predictive variables
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
289
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
Table 3 Factors examined in relationship to caregiver burden/strain: Number of studies that report a positive, negative, or no correlation
Patient Age (young) Gender (female) Functional status (poor) Cognitive impairment Quality of life (poor) Mental health (poor) Depressive symptoms Anxiety Caregiver Age (young) Gender (female) Relationship to patient Spouse Daughter-in-law Self-rated health (poor) Functional status (poor) Self-esteem (poor) Mental health (poor) Depressive symptoms Anxiety Quality of life (poor) Amount of caregiving Duration of caregiving Caregiver training Formal support (little) Informal support (little) Unemployment Income
Positive
Negative
None
3 (17, 20, 22) 1 (16) 8 (16, 19–25) 2 (18, 30) 1 (20) 2 (19, 30) 2 (22, 25) 1 (10)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (10, 20) 2 (16, 18) 6 (10, 16, 18, 22, 26, 27) 3 (19, 23, 25) 0 1 (24) 1 (27) 2 (10, 22)
1 (30) 1 (16, 25)
0 0
2 (10, 27) 7 (10, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 30)
1 (26) 1 (25) 3 (16, 25, 26) 1 (21) 1 (28) 3 (21, 24, 28) 3 (10, 25, 27) 2 (10, 25) 1 (17) 6 (16, 17, 21, 25, 28, 29) 1 (28) 0 0 1 (10) 1 (25) 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (10) 0 0 1 (19) 0
1 (27) 1 (27) 2 (25, 27, 30) 1 (10) 0 0 1 (10) q 0 0 1 (26) 1 (10) 1 (10) 3 (10, 19, 27) 0 1 (26)
Longitudinal data demonstrating correlates that gain significance with time.
and caregiver burden. This suggests that there was not a major bias in favour of publications reporting positive results.
Restricted amount of information gathered There was wide variability in the datasets considered by the studies reviewed. Some factors that may have important influences on caregiver burden were not consistently assessed. These include the presence and adequacy of community and social service support, patient and caregiver spirituality, and concomitant illnesses of patients and caregivers. Despite a wide range of patient, caregiver, and support variables considered in many of the studies, regression models were unable to account for a significant proportion of the variance in burden as indicated by the R2 (range 17–627%) (14, 19).
Lack of longitudinal data Longitudinal data are necessary to understand the temporal pattern of caregiver burden poststroke. Only four studies examined caregiver burden at serial time points (16, 19, 20, 25). Sequential follow-up studies are required in order to comprehend the changing nature of caregiver burden and the ways in which factors function differently at different times.
290
Small sample size Many studies lacked the statistical power to make confident conclusions about the prevalence of caregiver burden and factors that independently correlate with higher levels of burden. Sample sizes for the18 studies ranged from 35 to 232 (Table 1). Statistical methods All but six studies (3, 31, 32, 34–36) used multiple regression analytical methods to assess the complex interrelationships of various caregiver outcomes and determinants. Univariate analysis alone fails to account for the interdependency between variables. Measures Caregiver burden is a complex and multidimensional construct that encompasses psychological, emotional, physical, sociological, and economical domains. Many instruments have been developed to measure caregiver burden but they are not all clinically validated in stroke patients nor are the psychometric properties always established for this population. In one study comparing four burden scales, the SRB was recommended as a quick screening tool and the CSI for more complex evaluations of burden. However, further work is
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
needed to develop instruments that reliably measure all aspects of the caregiver experience (38). Attempts to make meaningful comparisons of the prevalence and determinants of caregiver burden are made difficult by the diversity of instruments used in the assessment. To our knowledge, none of the instruments utilised in these studies have validated cut points for delineating levels of burden. Moreover, in measures of other outcomes, the conventional delineation is not always used. For example, Chumbler et al. (27) uses an MMSE cut-off value of 18 rather than the customary score of 20 to indicate cognitive impairment.
Conclusions Our findings suggest that proportion of caregivers under considerable burden is significant and remains high for an indefinite period poststroke. Disagreement exists over which factors independently contribute to increased caregiver burden. The discrepant findings may be explained, in part, by differences in assessment instruments, study populations, sample sizes, and by the restricted amount of information gathered. Despite these limitations, certain variables appear to be persistently correlated with higher levels of caregiver burden. The most consistent patient and caregiver characteristics associated with burden are those relating to mental health (anxiety, depression, and emotional distress). The amount of time caregiving and the number of caregiving tasks performed, sometimes referred to as objective burden (13), are also highly correlated with increased levels of subjective burden. Studies suggest that there is overlap between determinants of burden across chronic disease. In particular, patients’ psychological and cognitive morbidity may be common predictors of burden in caregivers of chronically disabled elderly populations. Long-term care of stroke patients should include the identification and assessment of vulnerable caregivers in need of support so that appropriate interventions can be implemented. Mental health and objective burden, identified in this review as consistent predictors of caregiver burden, are easily measured and potentially modifiable risk factors. A study by Kalra et al. (39) showed that a training programme for caregivers of stroke patients decreased caregiver burden and reduced anxiety and depression of both patients and caregivers at 1 year. These findings point toward a pressing need for the stroke community to move toward a patient- and caregiver-centred approach so that long-term outcomes for can be optimised (10).
References 1 Boult C, Kane RL, Louis TA, Boult L, McCaffrey D. Chronic conditions that lead to functional limitation in the elderly. J Gerontol 1994; 49:M28–36. 2 Kelly JF, Winograd CH. A functional approach to stroke management in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985; 33:48–60.
3 Draper BM, Poulos CJ, Cole AM, Poulos RG, Ehrlich F. A comparison of caregivers for elderly stroke and dementia victims. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40:896–901. 4 Anderson CS, Linto J, Stewart-Wynne EG. A population-based assessment of the impact and burden of caregiving for long-term stroke survivors. Stroke 1995; 26:843–9. 5 Carnwath TC, Johnson DA. Psychiatric morbidity among spouses of patients with stroke. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987; 294:409–11. 6 Han B, Haley WE. Family caregiving for patients with stroke. Review and analysis. Stroke 1999; 30:1478–85. 7 Wade DT, Legh-Smith J, Hewer RL. Effects of living with and looking after survivors of a stroke. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:418–20. 8 Lee S, Colditz GA, Berkman LF, Kawachi I. Caregiving and risk of coronary heart disease in U. S. women: a prospective study. Am J Prev Med 2003; 24:113–9. 9 Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA 1999; 282:2215–9. 10 McCullagh E, Brigstocke G, Donaldson N, Kalra L. Determinants of caregiving burden and quality of life in caregivers of stroke patients. Stroke 2005; 36:2181–6 (Epub 2005 September 8). 11 Glass TA, Matchar DB, Belyea M, Feussner JR Impact of social support on outcome in first stroke. Stroke 1993; 24:64–70. 12 Clarke PJ, Black SE, Badley EM, Lawrence JM, Williams JI. Handicap in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21:116–23. 13 Montgomery RV, Stull DE, Borgatta EF. Measurement and the analysis of burden. Res Aging 1985; 7:137–52. 14 Thommessen B, Wyller TB, Bautz-Holter E, Laake K. Acute phase predictors of subsequent psychosocial burden in carers of elderly stroke patients. Cerebrovasc Dis 2001; 11:201–6. 15 Visser-Meily A, Post M, Schepers V, Lindeman E. Spouses’ quality of life 1 year after stroke: prediction at the start of clinical rehabilitation. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005; 20:443–8 (Epub 2005 October 17). 16 Bugge C, Alexander H, Hagen S. Stroke patients’ informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service factors that affect caregiver strain. Stroke 1999; 30:1517–23. 17 van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, van den Berg B, Brouwer WB, van den Bos GA. Burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients. Identification of caregivers at risk of adverse health effects. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005; 19:11–7 (Epub 2004 November 3). 18 Thommessen B, Aarsland D, Braekhus A, Oksengaard AR, Engedal K, Laake K. The psychosocial burden on spouses of the elderly with stroke, dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002; 17: 78–84. 19 Tooth L, McKenna K, Barnett A, Prescott C, Murphy S. Caregiver burden, time spent caring and health status in the first 12 months following stroke. Brain Inj 2005; 19:963–74. 20 Ilse IB, Feys H, de Wit L, Putman K, de Weerdt W. Stroke caregivers’ strain: prevalence and determinants in the first six months after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30:523–30. 21 Scholte op Reimer WJ, de Haan RJ, Rijnders PT, Limburg M, van den Bos GA. The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term stroke survivors. Stroke 1998; 29:1605–11. 22 Jones AL, Charlesworth JF, Hendra TJ. Patient mood and carer strain during stroke rehabilitation in the community following early hospital discharge. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22:490–4. 23 Kao HF, McHugh ML. The role of caregiver gender and caregiver burden in nursing home placements for elderly Taiwanese survivors of stroke. Res Nurs Health 2004; 27:121–34. 24 Blake H, Lincoln NB. Factors associated with strain in co-resident spouses of patients following stroke. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14:307–14. 25 Choi-Kwon S, Kim HS, Kwon SU, Kim JS. Factors affecting the burden on caregivers of stroke survivors in South Korea. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86:1043–8. 26 Tang YY, Chen SP Health promotion behaviors in Chinese family caregivers of patients with stroke. Health Promot Int 2002; 17:329–39.
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
291
Topical review
H. Rigby et al.
27 Chumbler NR, Rittman M, Van Puymbroeck M, Vogel WB, Qin H. The sense of coherence, burden, and depressive symptoms in informal caregivers during the first month after stroke. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19:944–53. 28 Bakas T, Burgener SC. Predictors of emotional distress, general health, and caregiving outcomes in family caregivers of stroke survivors. Top Stroke Rehabil 2002; 9:34–45. 29 Morimoto T, Schreiner AS, Asano H et al. Perceptions of burden among family caregivers of post-stroke elderly in Japan. Int J Rehabil Res 2001; 24:221–6. 30 van den Heuvel ET, de Witte LP, Schure LM, Sanderman R, Meyboomde Jong B. Risk factors for burn-out in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15:669–77. 31 Morimoto T, Schreiner AS, Asano H. Caregiver burden and healthrelated quality of life among Japanese stroke caregivers. Age Ageing 2003; 32:218–23. 32 Draper P, Brocklehurst H. The impact of stroke on the well-being of the patient’s spouse: an exploratory study. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16:264–71. 33 Bakas T, Champion V. Development and psychometric testing of the Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale. Nurs Res 1999; 48:250–9. 34 Elmstahl S, Malmberg B, Annerstedt L. Caregiver’s burden of patients 3 years after stroke assessed by a novel caregiver burden scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77:177–82. 35 Tiegs TJ, Heesacker M, Ketterson TU et al. Coping by stroke caregivers: sex similarities and differences. Top Stroke Rehabil 2006; 13:52–62. 36 Grabowska-Fudala B, Jaracz K. The burden of caregivers of patients after stroke – preliminary results. Udar Mozgu – Probl Interdyscyp 2007; 9:24–31. 37 Bots ML, Looman SJ, Koudstaal PJ, Hofman A, Hoes AW, Grobbee DE. Prevalence of stroke in the general population. The Rotterdam Study. Stroke 1996; 27:1499–501.
292
38 van Exel NJ, Brouwer WB, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA, van den Bos GA. What really matters: an inquiry into the relative importance of dimensions of informal caregiver burden. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18:683–93. 39 Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I et al. Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2004; 328:1099. 40 van den Heuvel ET, de Witte LP, Schuve LM, Sandevman R, Meyboomde-Jong B. Risk Factors for burnout in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15:669–77. 41 Robinson BC. Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol 1983; 38:344–8. 42 Scholte op Reimer WJ, de Haan RJ, Pijnenborg JM, Limburg M, van den Bos GA. Assessment of burden in partners of stroke patients with the sense of competence questionnaire. Stroke 1998; 29:373–9. 43 Greene JG, Smith R, Gardiner M, Timbury GC. Measuring behavioural disturbance of elderly demented patients in the community and its effects on relatives: a factor analytic study. Age Ageing 1982; 11: 121–6. 44 Novak M, Guest C. Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory. Gerontologist 1989; 29:798–803. 45 Given CW, Given B, Stommel M, Collins C, King S, Franklin S. The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for caregivers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Res Nurs Health 1992; 15:271–83. 46 Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist 1980; 20: 649–55. 47 van Exel NJ, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Brouwer WB, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA, van den Bos GA. Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: a comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18:203–14.
& 2009 World Stroke Organization International Journal of Stroke Vol 4, August 2009, 285–292 No claim to original US government works
