| Literature DB >> 27563466 |
Cécile Donzé1, Bruno Lenne2, Anne-Sophie Jean Deleglise3, Christian Kempf4, Yasmine Bellili3, Patrick Hautecoeur2.
Abstract
Background. The perception of the role of caregivers for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) is important but poorly studied, particularly in patients with low levels of disability. Objectives. To describe the perceptions of the role of caregivers from the perspective of the caregiver, the patient, and neurologists. Methods. This observational study was conducted in France on patients with relapsing remitting MS treated with subcutaneous (SC) interferon-β-1a (IFN-β-1a) for more than 24 months. Results. Caregiver, patients, and neurologists all considered providing moral support and fighting against the disease as the most important role of the care provider. Moral support was considered significantly more important by caregivers than the patients and neurologists (p = 0.002) and caregivers considered their role in helping patients to fight disease more important than did the neurologists (p = 0.006). Knowledge of disease and available treatments were less important among support providers than patients (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001). Conclusion. There are many unmet needs in the perception of the role of caregivers for people with MS which need to be addressed to deliver the most effective care package for patients and to support the needs of the support provider.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27563466 PMCID: PMC4983666 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4986073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mult Scler Int ISSN: 2090-2654
Figure 1Disposition of patients. 1One patient had no caregiver; two patients were not treated with IFN beta 1a for more than 24 months. 2At least one of the three questionnaires was missing.
Patients' and caregivers' characteristics.
| Caregivers ( | Patients ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years)a | 43.0 (10.9)3 | 40.6 (9.3) |
| 18–39b | 73 (48.3%) | |
| 40–60b | 73 (48.3%) | |
| >60b | 5 (3.3%) | |
| Gender: femaleb | 62 (41.6%)2 | 104 (68.9%) |
| Professional activityb | 125 (83.9%)2 | 100 (66.7%)1 |
| Living in couplesb | 136 (92.5%)4 | 134 (89.9%)2 |
| With children at homeb | 90 (61.2%)4 | 94 (63.1%) |
| Relationship | With the patientb1 | With the caregiverb2 |
| Spouse/husband | 127 (84.7%) | 127 (85.2%) |
| Child | 10 (6.7%) | 5 (3.4%) |
| Friend | 5 (3.3%) | 5 (3.4%) |
| Relative | 4 (2.7%) | 9 (6.0%) |
| Other | 4 (2.7%) | 3 (2.0%) |
| Understanding of the diseaseac | 5.7 (2.7) | 6.5 (2.2) |
| Knowledge of available treatmentsac | 5.2 (2.8) | 6.2 (2.5) |
| Fears of disease progressionac | 7.6 (2.2) | 7.4 (2.2) |
| Sufficient medical informationac | 5.8 (2.5) | 6.9 (2.3) |
|
| ||
| Time since first symptoms (years)a4 | 9.5 (5.6) | |
| Time since diagnosis (years)a | 7.7 (4.9) | |
| Number of relapses in the last two yearsa1 | 0.9 (1.1) | |
| Time since last relapse (years)a2 | 2.6 (2.4) | |
| Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) | 2.0 (1–3) | |
| 0.0–3.0b | 116 (76.8%) | |
| 3.5–4.5b | 22 (14.6%) | |
| 5.0–6.5b | 13 (8.6%) | |
| Symptomatic treatmentsb | 98 (64.9%) | |
| Analgesicsb | 64 (42.3%) | |
| Antidepressantsb | 29 (19.2%) | |
| Sphincter disorder treatmentsb | 20 (13.2%) | |
| Antispasticsb | 18 (11.9%) | |
| Antiasthenicsb | 10 (10.2%) | |
aMean (SD); b N (%) percentages are calculated for documented values; cassessed using 10 cm visual analogue scales; median (quartiles).
1,2,3,4Number of missing values.
Figure 2Intensity of support provided by the caregiver according to each stakeholder. aMoral support: caregiver versus neurologist; p value < 0.0001. bCaregiver versus patient; p value = 0.0002. cDisease fighting: caregiver versus neurologist; p value = 0.006. p values are fixed model repeated ANOVA.
Figure 3Intensity of support provided by the caregiver according to each stakeholder, by patient's age class.
Figure 4Intensity of support provided by the caregiver according to each stakeholder, by EDSS level.
Figure 5Intensity of support provided by the caregiver according to each stakeholder, by time since diagnosis.
Changes with time in the nature and frequency of the support provided by the caregiver.
| Patients ( | Caregivers ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Car movinga,§ | 3.1 (3.5)4 | 3.1 (3.3)5 |
| Outdoor movinga,§ | 2.5 (3.1)4 | 2.7 (3.2)3 |
| Household activitiesa,§ | 3.4 (3.2)1 | 3.8 (3.5)4 |
| Shoppinga,§ | 3.5 (3.5)6 | 3.7 (3.5)2 |
| Childcarea,§ | 2.9 (3.1)28 | 2.9 (3.2)29 |
| Leisurea,§ | 2.9 (2.8)5 | 3.2 (3.1)5 |
| Disease fightinga,§ | 5.0 (3.3)3 | 5.0 (3.2)7 |
| Moral supporta,§ | 4.7 (3.2)3 | 5.1 (3.4)2 |
| INF injectionsa,§ | 2.5 (3.3)3 | 2.7 (3.3)8 |
| Nursinga,§ | 1.4 (2.3)19 | 1.0 (1.9)16 |
| Social approachesa,§ | 2.6 (3.2)5 | 2.7 (3.4)7 |
| Toilet/dressinga,§ | 1.3 (2.2)8 | 1.1 (2.1)8 |
aMean (SD); §assessed using 10 cm visual analogue scales.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,16,19,28,29Number of missing values.
Figure 6Radar plot of the physical, psychological, affective, and professional impact of the treatment. Sixteen components of the physical, psychological, affective, and professional impact of the disease on the patient were assessed by the physician and the patient, while caregivers assessed the impact of the disease on their own life. For the latter, only 14 out of 16 components were investigated: the impacts of the disease on their autonomy and finances were not considered.
Figure 7Patients' and caregivers' unmet needs.