OBJECTIVE: To describe measures used to evaluate the burden of caregiving experienced by caregivers of stroke patients and their clinimetric properties. DESIGN: A review of the literature was conducted to examine burden scales with regard to concept, feasibility, internal consistency, validity, reliability and responsiveness. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 45 measures of caregiver outcomes, including 16 different measures of caregiver burden. About half of the scales were used only once and were not further described. Nearly all instruments measure the various dimensions of burden (competency, negative feelings, social relations, participation problems, physical and mental health and economic aspects), but not in the same proportions. Most measures showed good internal consistency, and validity was demonstrated for all measures except one. However, not much is known about the reliability and responsiveness of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: No measure has proven superiority above others. Future research should focus on comparisons between existing instruments and on their reliability and responsiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To describe measures used to evaluate the burden of caregiving experienced by caregivers of strokepatients and their clinimetric properties. DESIGN: A review of the literature was conducted to examine burden scales with regard to concept, feasibility, internal consistency, validity, reliability and responsiveness. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 45 measures of caregiver outcomes, including 16 different measures of caregiver burden. About half of the scales were used only once and were not further described. Nearly all instruments measure the various dimensions of burden (competency, negative feelings, social relations, participation problems, physical and mental health and economic aspects), but not in the same proportions. Most measures showed good internal consistency, and validity was demonstrated for all measures except one. However, not much is known about the reliability and responsiveness of these measures. CONCLUSIONS: No measure has proven superiority above others. Future research should focus on comparisons between existing instruments and on their reliability and responsiveness.
Authors: Annemiek Petronella Maria Backx; Annemie Irene Frans Spooren; Helena Maria Henrika Bongers-Janssen; Hanneke Bouwsema Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Peter Wayne New; Denise G Tate; Martin B Forchheimer; Julia Maria D'Andréa Greve; Divya Parashar; Marcel W M Post Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Tamilyn Bakas; Carol J Farran; Joan K Austin; Barbara A Given; Elizabeth A Johnson; Linda S Williams Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Smi Choi-Kwon; Pamela H Mitchell; Richard Veith; Linda Teri; Ann Buzaitis; Kevin C Cain; Kyra J Becker; David Tirschwell; Michael Fruin; Jimi Choi; Jong S Kim Journal: Rehabil Nurs Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.625