OBJECTIVES: To determine whether age or stage of cancer can be used to identify caregivers at high risk for excessive burden or distress. DESIGN: Descriptive data collected as part of a psychosocial research registry, comparing younger caregivers with older and caregivers of early-stage patients with those of later stage. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of newly diagnosed adult cancer patients. MEASUREMENTS: Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA), the Profile of Mood States (POMS), single-item indicators from the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System set, and the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support (MOS-SS) Scale. Patient information was obtained from the medical record. RESULTS: Younger caregivers and caregivers of patients with Stage I and II cancer identified a greater lack of family support than older caregivers and caregivers of patients with Stage III and IV cancer. Significant regression models were found for three CRA subscales (Disrupted Schedule, Lack of Family Support, and Health Problems), as well as for the POMS depression and fatigue scales. Caregiver social support (MOS-SS) made the only significant contribution to the models. There were significant differences between caregivers with high and low levels of social support on almost all measures of well-being. CONCLUSION: Incorporating formal assessment of social support may be useful in identifying at-risk caregivers. In addition, there is a need to further investigate which dimensions of social support are most strongly related to measures of well-being.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether age or stage of cancer can be used to identify caregivers at high risk for excessive burden or distress. DESIGN: Descriptive data collected as part of a psychosocial research registry, comparing younger caregivers with older and caregivers of early-stage patients with those of later stage. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of newly diagnosed adult cancerpatients. MEASUREMENTS: Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA), the Profile of Mood States (POMS), single-item indicators from the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System set, and the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support (MOS-SS) Scale. Patient information was obtained from the medical record. RESULTS: Younger caregivers and caregivers of patients with Stage I and II cancer identified a greater lack of family support than older caregivers and caregivers of patients with Stage III and IV cancer. Significant regression models were found for three CRA subscales (Disrupted Schedule, Lack of Family Support, and Health Problems), as well as for the POMS depression and fatigue scales. Caregiver social support (MOS-SS) made the only significant contribution to the models. There were significant differences between caregivers with high and low levels of social support on almost all measures of well-being. CONCLUSION: Incorporating formal assessment of social support may be useful in identifying at-risk caregivers. In addition, there is a need to further investigate which dimensions of social support are most strongly related to measures of well-being.
Authors: Barbara J Daly; Sara L Douglas; Helen Foley; Amy Lipson; Chiou-Fang Emily Liou; Karen Bowman; Donna Kwilosz; Siran Koroukian; Elizabeth O'Toole; Kathleen Smyth; Aloen Townsend; Vivian VonGruenigen; Julia Rose Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Steven B Clauser; Kathryn E Flynn; Thomas Lad; Jin-Shei Lai; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Arthur A Stone; Kevin Weinfurt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judith T Moskowitz; Elaine O Cheung; Karin E Snowberg; Alice Verstaen; Jennifer Merrilees; John M Salsman; Glenna A Dowling Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Angie Mae Rodday; Elizabeth J Pedowitz; Deborah K Mayer; Sara J Ratichek; Charles W Given; Susan K Parsons Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Valentina Donison; Nelly Toledano; Avital Sigal; Katherine S McGilton; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Martine Puts Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Jessica M Sautter; James A Tulsky; Kimberly S Johnson; Maren K Olsen; Allison M Burton-Chase; Jennifer Hoff Lindquist; Sheryl Zimmerman; Karen E Steinhauser Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Charlene J Treanor; Olinda Santin; Gillian Prue; Helen Coleman; Chris R Cardwell; Peter O'Halloran; Michael Donnelly Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-17