| Literature DB >> 32899352 |
Elżbieta Szlenk-Czyczerska1, Marika Guzek2, Dorota Emilia Bielska3, Anna Ławnik4, Piotr Polański5, Donata Kurpas6.
Abstract
This study aimed to answer three main questions with respect to home caregivers for people with cardiovascular disease: (1) Are the needs of home caregivers being met (and at what level)?; (2) what is the level of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment of home caregivers?; (3) what sociodemographic variables of home caregivers are related to unmet needs and level of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment? The study used the Camberwell Modified Needs Assessment questionnaire and the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire. This study reports on 161 informal home caregivers of patients with cardiovascular disease. We found that younger caregivers were less likely to report unmet needs (p = 0.011), and showed lower rates of burnout on depersonalization and emotional exhaustion. In addition, caregivers who worked more often reported higher levels of met needs (p = 0.022), and showed lower rates of burnout on depersonalization (p = 0.005) and emotional exhaustion (p = 0.018). Subjects residing in urban areas were more likely to report unmet needs (p = 0.007), and showed higher rates of burnout on emotional exhaustion (p = 0.006). Older caregivers who are unemployed and reside in cities should be offered programs to determine their unmet needs and to receive support.Entities:
Keywords: growing burnout; informal caregivers; met and unmet needs
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32899352 PMCID: PMC7503827 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive variables for logistic regression analysis models.
| Variables | Coding | |
|---|---|---|
| x1 | Gender | 1—Women |
| 2—Men | ||
| x2 | Age (in years) | Number of years |
| x3 | Marital status | 1—Single |
| 2—Married | ||
| 3—Widowed | ||
| 4—Divorced | ||
| x4 | Place of residence | 1—Big city <100 thousand inhabitants |
| 2—Middle town from 20–100 thousand inhabitants | ||
| 3—Town small >20 thousand inhabitants | ||
| 4—Village | ||
| x5 | Education | 1—Primary |
| 2—Vocational | ||
| 3—Secondary without Matura Exam | ||
| 4—Secondary with Matura Exam | ||
| 5—Post-secondary | ||
| 6—BA | ||
| 7—MA | ||
| x6 | Family-related caregiver | 1—Wife/husband |
| 2—Brother/sister | ||
| 3—Mother/father | ||
| 4—Uncle/aunt | ||
| 5—Cousin | ||
| 6—Other | ||
| x7 | Non-family caregiver | 1—Neighbour |
| 2—Informal partner | ||
| 3—Other | ||
| x8 | Employment | 1—Full time |
| 2—Part-time | ||
| 3—Sick leave-child care | ||
| 4 – Sick leave | ||
| 5—Unemployment benefit | ||
| 6—Unemployment | ||
| x9 | Period of homecare | Number of years |
Sociodemographic data of caregivers *.
| Variable (n = 161) | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | women | 113 | 70.2 |
| men | 48 | 29.8 | |
| Age (in years) | n = 159 | ||
| median | 55 | ||
| Q.25%–Q.50%–Q.75% | 42.50–55–64 | ||
| min.–max. | 17–95 | ||
| Education | primary | 16 | 9.9 |
| vocational | 37 | 23 | |
| secondary without Matura Exam | 7 | 4.3 | |
| secondary with Matura Exam | 38 | 23.6 | |
| post-secondary | 11 | 6.8 | |
| BA | 6 | 3.7 | |
| MA | 46 | 28.6 | |
| total | 161 | 100 | |
| Place of residence | urban | 94 | 58.4 |
| rural | 67 | 41.6 | |
| total | 161 | 100 | |
| Marital status | single | 31 | 19.4 |
| married | 105 | 65.6 | |
| widowed | 15 | 9.4 | |
| divorced | 9 | 5.6 | |
| total | 160 | 100 | |
| Family-related caregiver | wife/husband | 42 | 28.2 |
| brother/sister | 6 | 4 | |
| mother/father | 63 | 42.3 | |
| uncle/aunt | 5 | 3.4 | |
| cousin | 6 | 4 | |
| other | 27 | 18.1 | |
| total | 149 | 100 | |
| Non-family caregiver | neighbour | 9 | 60 |
| informal partner | 4 | 26.7 | |
| other | 2 | 13.3 | |
| total | 15 | 100 | |
| Employment | full time | 76 | 48.4 |
| part-time | 10 | 6.4 | |
| sick leave-child care | 6 | 3.8 | |
| sick leave | 1 | 0.6 | |
| unemployment benefit | 6 | 3.8 | |
| unemployed | 58 | 36.9 | |
| total | 157 | 100 | |
| Period of homecare (in years) | n = 131 | ||
| median | 4 | ||
| Q.25%–Q.50%–Q.75% | 2–4–10 | ||
| min.–max. | 1–51 | ||
Legend: n—group quantity; %—percentage; Q.25%—first quartile; Me—median; Q.75%—third quartile; Min.—minimum; Max.—maximum. * The figures in column n do not sum up to 161 due to missing data.
Assessment of the level of needs and burnout among caregivers.
| Variable | n | M | SD | Q.25% | Me | Q.75% | Min. | Max. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camberwell Index | 161 | 0.83 | 0.13 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.94 | 0.44 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Emotional exhaustion | 154 * | 20.28 | 12.52 | 10 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 50 | 0.002 |
| Depersonalization | 155 * | 7.22 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 11.50 | 0 | 24 | <0.001 |
| Personal Accomplishment | 147 * | 29.07 | 8.43 | 23 | 29 | 35 | 8 | 48 | 0.322 |
Legend: n—group quantity; M—mean; SD—standard deviation; Q.25%—first quartile; Me—median; Q.75%—third quartile; Min.—minimum; Max.—maximum; p—calculated level of significance for the standard Shapiro-Wilk test. * The figures in column n do not sum up to 161 due to missing data.
The relationship between variable sociodemographic data and the level of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment among caregivers.
| Variable | MBI | MBI | MBI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Gender | −0.04 | 0.640 | 0 | 0.969 | −0.04 | 0.647 |
| Age (in years) | 0.21 | 0.010 | 0.21 | 0.009 | −0.08 | 0.336 |
| Marital status | 0.19 | 0.020 | 0.24 | 0.003 | −0.09 | 0.303 |
| Education | −0.11 | 0.164 | −0.18 | 0.028 | 0.12 | 0.136 |
| Family-related caregiver | −0.12 | 0.148 | −0.06 | 0.492 | −0.09 | 0.321 |
| Non-family caregiver | −0.11 | 0.708 | −0.08 | 0.775 | −0.15 | 0.596 |
| Employment | 0.19 | 0.018 | 0.23 | 0.005 | −0.09 | 0.264 |
| Place of residence (urban/rural) | −0.22 | 0.006 | −0.11 | 0.184 | 0.15 | 0.062 |
Legend: p—level of significance for test verifying null hypothesis, that r = 0 in contrary to r ≠ 0; r—Spearman correlation coefficient; r—if p ≤ 0.05.
Analysis between subscales Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) of the unmet needs.
| Variable | Unmet Needs | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| MBI—Emotional Exhaustion | −0.47 | |
| MBI—Depersonalization | −0.34 | |
| MBI—Personal Accomplishment | 0.32 | |
Legend: p—level of significance for test verifying null hypothesis, that r = 0 in contrast to r ≠ 0; r—Spearman correlation coefficient; r—if p ≤ 0.05.
Results of logistic regression analysis and odds ratio of logistic regression model in the group of caregivers. Explained variable: Unmet needs (0—more unmet needs, 1—fewer unmet needs) in caregivers.
| Explanatory Variables | bi | SE | zi | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models with two explanatory variables | ||||||||
| Chi2 = 9.66, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X1 | Gender | 0.919 | 0.320 | 2.874 | 0.004 | |||
| X2 | Age | −0.023 | 0.008 | −2.980 | 0.003 | |||
| Chi2 = 4.97, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X1 | Gender | 0.506 | 0.242 | 2.085 | 0.037 | |||
| X3 | Marital status | −0.335 | 0.157 | −2.134 | 0.033 | |||
| Models with three explanatory variables | ||||||||
| Chi2 = 11.15, df = 3, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X4 | Place of residence | 0.340 | 0.115 | 2.955 | 0.003 | |||
| X5 | Education | −0.117 | 0.059 | −1.978 | 0.048 | |||
| X8 | Employment | −0.161 | 0.063 | −2.559 | 0.011 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | range | ||
|
| ||||||||
| X1 | Gender (1–2) | 2.51 | 1.36–4.81 | 1.77 | 2.51 | 1.36–4.81 | 0.40 | 1 |
| X2 | Age (17–95) | 0.98 | 0.96–0.99 | 0.99 | 0.16 | 0.05–0.52 | 6.07 | 78 |
|
| ||||||||
| X3 | Marital status (1–4) | 0.72 | 0.52–0.98 | 1.40 | 0.37 | 0.14–0.90 | 2.73 | 3 |
|
| ||||||||
| X4 | Place of residence (1–4) | 1.40 | 0.52–1.77 | 0.71 | 2.77 | 1.43–5.56 | 0.36 | 3 |
| X5 | Education (1–7) | 0.89 | 0.52–0.99 | 1.12 | 0.50 | 0.24–0.98 | 2.02 | 6 |
| X8 | Employment (1–6) | 0.85 | 0.52–0.96 | 1.17 | 0.45 | 0.24–0.82 | 2.24 | 5 |
Legend: OR—odds ratio; CI—95% confidence interval for OR. Chi-squared—statistical hypothesis test of Chi2 model adjustment; df—number of degrees of freedom; p—calculated level of test significance; pseudo R2—value which evaluates explanatory variable anticipation according to the model; bi—coefficient estimation in regression model; SEi—standard error estimation for bi coefficient; zi—value of test statistics in standard distribution; (pi = Pr (> |zi|)—calculated probability value pi for double-sided critical area equal to z; n-group quantity.
Results of logistic regression analysis and the odds ratio in logistic regression model in caregivers. Explained variable: Emotional exhaustion (0—smaller, 1—bigger emotional exhaustion).
| Explanatory Variables | bi | SE | zi | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models with two explanatory variables | ||||||||
| Chi2 = 8.51, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X2 | Age | 0.015 | 0.006 | 2.607 | 0.009 | |||
| X4 | Place of residence | −0.313 | 0.111 | −2.818 | 0.005 | |||
| Chi2 = 5.29, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X5 | Education | −0.087 | 0.044 | −1.996 | 0.046 | |||
| X8 | Employment | 0.106 | 0.052 | 2.045 | 0.041 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | range | ||
|
| ||||||||
| X2 | Age (17–95) | 1.02 | 1.00–1.03 | 0.98 | 3.32 | 1.37–8.41 | 0.30 | 78 |
| X4 | Place of residence (1–4) | 0.73 | 0.58–0.91 | 1.37 | 0.39 | 0.20–0.74 | 2.56 | 3 |
|
| ||||||||
| X5 | Education (1−7) | 0.92 | 0.84–0.99 | 1.09 | 0.59 | 0.35–0.98 | 1.69 | 6 |
| X8 | Employment (1−6) | 1.11 | 1.01–1.23 | 0.90 | 1.70 | 1.03–2.86 | 0.59 | 5 |
Legend: OR—odds ratio; CI—95% confidence interval for OR. Chi-squared—statistical hypothesis test of Chi2 model adjustment; df—number of degrees of freedom; p—calculated level of test significance; pseudo R2—value which evaluates explanatory variable anticipation according to the model; bi—coefficient estimation in regression model; SEi—standard error estimation for bi coefficient; zi—value of test statistics in standard distribution; (pi = Pr (> |zi|)—calculated probability value pi for double-sided critical area equal to z; n-group quantity.
Results of logistic regression analysis and the odds ratio in logistic regression model in caregivers. Explained variable: Depersonalization (0—smaller, 1—bigger depersonalization).
| Explanatory Variables | bi | SE | zi | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models with two explanatory variables | ||||||||
| Chi2 = 8.20, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X4 | Place of residence | −0.190 | 0.071 | −2.664 | 0.008 | |||
| X9 | Period of homecare | 0.041 | 0.021 | 1.965 | 0.049 | |||
| Chi2 = 8.58, df =2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X5 | Education | −0.127 | 0.047 | −2.701 | 0.007 | |||
| X9 | Period of homecare | 0.043 | 0.022 | 1.982 | 0.047 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | range | ||
|
| ||||||||
| X4 | Place of residence (1–4) | 0.83 | 0.72–0.95 | 1.21 | 0.57 | 0.37–0.85 | 1.77 | 3 |
| X9 | Period of homecare (1–51) | 1.04 | 1.00–1.09 | 0.96 | 7.84 | 1.19–79.55 | 0.13 | 50 |
|
| ||||||||
| X5 | Education (1–7) | 0.88 | 0.80–0.96 | 1.14 | 0.47 | 0.26–0.80 | 2.15 | 6 |
Legend: OR—odds ratio; CI—95% confidence interval for OR. Chi-squared—statistical hypothesis test of Chi2 model adjustment; df—number of degrees of freedom; p—calculated level of test significance; pseudo R2—value which evaluates explanatory variable anticipation according to the model; bi—coefficient estimation in regression model; SEi—standard error estimation for bi coefficient; zi—value of test statistics in standard distribution; (pi = Pr (> |zi|)—calculated probability value pi for double-sided critical area equal to z; n-group quantity.
Results of logistic regression analysis and the odds ratio in logistic regression model in caregivers. Explained variable: Personal accomplishment (0—smaller, 1—bigger personal accomplishment).
| Explanatory Variables | bi | SE | zi | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models with two explanatory variables | ||||||||
| Chi2 = 6.05, df = 2, | ||||||||
| Intercept | – | – | – | – | ||||
| X1 | Gender | 0.616 | 0.258 | 2.390 | 0.017 | |||
| X4 | Place of residence | −0.246 | 0.116 | −2.113 | 0.035 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | OR | 95% CI | 1/OR | range | ||
|
| ||||||||
| X1 | Gender (1–2) | 1.85 | 1.13–3.12 | 0.54 | 1.85 | 1.13–3.12 | 0.54 | 1 |
| X4 | Place of residence (1–4) | 0.78 | 0.62–0.98 | 1.28 | 0.48 | 0.24–0.94 | 2.09 | 3 |
Legend: OR—odds ratio; CI—95% confidence interval for OR. Chi-squared—statistical hypothesis test of Chi2 model adjustment; df—number of degrees of freedom; p—calculated level of test significance; pseudo R2—value which evaluates explanatory variable anticipation according to the model; bi—coefficient estimation in regression model; SEi—standard error estimation for bi coefficient; zi—value of test statistics in standard distribution; (pi = Pr (> |zi|)—calculated probability value pi for double-sided critical area equal to z; n-group quantity.