BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers working with dementia caregivers typically assess caregiver stress in a clinic or research center, but caregivers' stress is rooted at home where they provide care. This study aimed to compare ratings of stress-related measures obtained in research settings and in the home using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). METHODS: EMA of 18 caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.8; 89% females) and 23 non-caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.9; 87% females) was implemented using a personal digital assistant. Subjects rated their perceived stress, fatigue, coping with current situation, mindfulness, and situational demand once in the research center and again at 3-4 semi-random points during a day at home. The data from several assessments conducted at home were averaged for statistical analyses and compared with the data collected in the research center. RESULTS: The testing environment had a differential effect on caregivers and non-caregivers for the ratings of perceived stress (p < 0.01) and situational demand (p = 0.01). When tested in the research center, ratings for all measures were similar between groups, but when tested at home, caregivers rated their perceived stress as higher than non-caregivers (p = 0.02). Overall, caregivers reported higher perceived stress at home than in the research center (p = 0.02), and non-caregivers reported greater situational demand in the research center than at home (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment method and environment affect stress-related outcomes. Evaluating participants in their natural environment provides a more sensitive measure of stress-related outcomes. EMA provides a convenient way to gather data when evaluating dementia caregivers.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers working with dementia caregivers typically assess caregiver stress in a clinic or research center, but caregivers' stress is rooted at home where they provide care. This study aimed to compare ratings of stress-related measures obtained in research settings and in the home using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). METHODS: EMA of 18 caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.8; 89% females) and 23 non-caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.9; 87% females) was implemented using a personal digital assistant. Subjects rated their perceived stress, fatigue, coping with current situation, mindfulness, and situational demand once in the research center and again at 3-4 semi-random points during a day at home. The data from several assessments conducted at home were averaged for statistical analyses and compared with the data collected in the research center. RESULTS: The testing environment had a differential effect on caregivers and non-caregivers for the ratings of perceived stress (p < 0.01) and situational demand (p = 0.01). When tested in the research center, ratings for all measures were similar between groups, but when tested at home, caregivers rated their perceived stress as higher than non-caregivers (p = 0.02). Overall, caregivers reported higher perceived stress at home than in the research center (p = 0.02), and non-caregivers reported greater situational demand in the research center than at home (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment method and environment affect stress-related outcomes. Evaluating participants in their natural environment provides a more sensitive measure of stress-related outcomes. EMA provides a convenient way to gather data when evaluating dementia caregivers.
Authors: Barry S Oken; Irina Fonareva; Mitchell Haas; Helane Wahbeh; James B Lane; Daniel Zajdel; Alexandra Amen Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Roland von Känel; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Joel E Dimsdale; Paul J Mills; Brent T Mausbach; Michael G Ziegler; Thomas L Patterson; Igor Grant Journal: Gerontology Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 5.140
Authors: Paul J Mills; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Roland von Känel; Brent T Mausbach; Kirstin Aschbacher; Thomas L Patterson; Michael G Ziegler; Joel E Dimsdale; Igor Grant Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2008-10-04 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Rosalia J M van Knippenberg; Marjolein E de Vugt; Rudolf W Ponds; Inez Myin-Germeys; Frans R J Verhey Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Konstantinos Kalafatakis; Georgina M Russell; Catherine J Harmer; Marcus R Munafo; Nicky Marchant; Aileen Wilson; Jonathan C W Brooks; Ngoc J Thai; Stuart G Ferguson; Kirsty Stevenson; Claire Durant; Kristin Schmidt; Stafford L Lightman Journal: Trials Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 2.279