Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Association between Perceived Oral Symptoms and Presence of Clinically Diagnosed Oral Diseases in a Sample of Pregnant Women in Malaysia
Next Article in Special Issue
Athlete-Specific Neural Strategies under Pressure: A fNIRS Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Incarceration Exposure and Barriers to Prenatal Care in the United States: Findings from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hematological and Running Performance Modification of Trained Athletes after Reverse vs. Block Training Periodization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph17197338
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicting Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers for the Elderly in Ecuador

by
Pablo Ruisoto
1,
Marina Ramírez
2,*,
Belén Paladines-Costa
2,
Silvia Vaca
2 and
Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez
3,4
1
Department of Health Sciences, University of Navarre, 31006 Pamplona, Spain
2
Department of Psychology, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja 110107, Ecuador
3
Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain
4
Grupo de Investigación en Cultura, Educación y Sociedad, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(19), 7338; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197338
Submission received: 1 September 2020 / Revised: 30 September 2020 / Accepted: 2 October 2020 / Published: 8 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stress and Training Load Effects on Recovery, Well-Being and Sports Performance)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Informal caregivers are the main providers of care for the elderly. The aim of this study is to examine the predictive value of different variables regarding caregivers and their elderly patients with respect to the caregiver’s burden. A convenience sample of 688 informal caregivers and 688 elderly people from Ecuador was surveyed. Only households with one caregiver and one elderly person were considered for the study. For informal caregivers, the following standardized measures were obtained: burden (Zarit Burden Interview), neuroticism (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated, EPQR-A), caregiver’s general health (GHQ-12), and social support (modified Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire, FSSQ11). For the elderly, we employed standardized measures of cognitive function (short portable mental status questionnaire, SPMSQ), Pfeiffer’s test, and functional dependency (Barthel scale/Index, BI). Females were over-represented in caregiving and reported significantly higher burden levels than those of males. In both male and female caregivers, the burden was best predicted by the time of caring, neuroticism, and elderly cognitive impairment. However, some predictors of burden were weighted differently in males and females. The functional independence of the elderly was a significant predictor of burden for male caregivers but not females, while caregiver competence was a significant predictor for females but not males. These variables accounted for more than 88% of the variability in informal caregivers.

1. Introduction

Stress is an intense and unusual stimulus elicited by the presence of a threat, or any other circumstance or event that an individual perceives as adverse [1]. There are some professions that elicit a large stress response, modifying the homeostasis of the natural organism. In professions such as the military, police, firefighting, and even among elite athletes, individuals frequently experience stress responses beyond the body’s natural limits [2,3,4]. However, stress is not only present in these professions; medical personnel, drivers, journalists, and even teachers and students exhibit elevated stress levels as a result of their exposure to their work context [5,6,7].
As an acute response, stress is designed to maintain the physical integrity of the subject; however, continuous exposure to stress may result in psychopathologies such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout [8].
In this respect, stress-related health issues as a result of the burden of providing care are well-documented in informal or family caregivers [9,10,11,12,13]. Moreover, the risk in the informal caregivers of the elderly is increasing since the general population age is steadily increasing. Providing care to the elderly is an important source of chronic stress considering the demands of providing care to elderly patients and the lack of resources of informal caregivers, including formal training.
In the context of caregiving, the stress model underlines the importance of the perceived lack of control and the psychological stress involved in the situation of caring compared with the objective amount of expected burden as a result of the degree of mental impairment or dependency of the elderly patient [14]. Some authors suggested that the time spent providing care, the caregiver’s age, their lack of social support, the cognitive impairment of the elderly, and the caregiver’s neuroticism are important factors [15,16]. Previous studies also found differences in the amount of perceived burden in caregivers [17]. However, most studies focused on caregivers of people with dementia [18,19,20] or other mental disorders [21].
In sum, the best predictors of burden in informal caregivers of the elderly in Ecuador remain understudied and elusive. The objective of this study is to analyze the predictive value of variables regarding caregivers and their elderly patients with respect to the burden of informal caregivers of the elderly. Furthermore, gender differences were analyzed. To our knowledge, this is the largest study attempting to predict burden in informal caregivers in Ecuador. This research could contribute to the development of interventions aimed at improving the well-being of caregivers of the elderly.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A convenience sample of 688 family caregivers (mean age = 49.1 ± 14.6; 79.8% females) and their respective 688 elderly patients (mean age = 80.8 ± 9.2; 60.5% females) from eight regions of Ecuador were recruited for this study. All participants were selected from the user referral lists of local retirement associations and centers associated with the Ministry of Social and Economic Inclusion (MIES). As inclusion criteria, all caregivers were relatives of their elderly patients, and their role was that of primary caregiver without receiving any compensation for this service, taking on responsibility for any decisions and for their patient’s well-being for at least 12 months. None of the caregivers was receiving specialized psychological support at the time of assessment, and they were living at home with the elderly people. All subjects had given their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local committee at the Public University of Loja (code 05-04/02/2019).

2.2. Measures

All caregivers were interviewed in one session divided into two parts: a sociodemographic questionnaire (age, gender, time providing care, marital status, ethnic, education level), and a psychological protocol using instruments developed and/or validated in Spanish. Specifically, the following standardized measures were included in this survey:
The Zarit Burden Interview [22] consists of 22 items measuring burden in caregivers. Participants respond using a Likert scale, ranging from 1, “never” to 5, “always”. Scores range from 22 to 110. One example item is “I think people I am providing care to are asking for more help than they need”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92.
CUIDAR [23] consists of 20 items assessing the caregiver’s competency to provide care. Participants respond using a Likert scale ranging from 0, “never” to 3, “always or almost always”. Scores range from 0 to 60. An example item is “I know how to monitorize the health condition of the person to whom I provide care”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88.
The Spanish Version of the Brief COPE (COPE-28) [24] consists of 28 items and assesses different coping scales, including substance use and religion. Participants respond using a four-point scale ranging from 0, “I have not done that at all” to 3, “I have done that very often”. Scores ranged from 0 to 6 for each subscale. An example item related to substance use is “I have taken alcohol or other drugs to feel better”, and an example related to religion is “I have tried to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 (substance use α = 0.62; religion α = 0.75).
Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire (FSSQ11) [25,26] consists of 11 items aiming to assess perceived social support. Participants respond using a scale ranging from 0, “never”, to 5, “always”. Scores range from 0 to 55. An example item is “I receive visits from friends and family”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.
Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated (EPQR-A) [27] consists of 24 items aiming to assess personality traits, including neuroticism, one of the big five higher-order personality traits. Scores range from 0 to 6 for each scale. An example item is “I suffer significant changes in my mood”. Internal consistency for this study was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.63 to 0.78.
The Barthel scale/index (BI) [28] consists of 10 items assessing functional dependency in daily life activities. Participants answer using a scale ranging from 0), dependent, to (5), need help, to (10), independent. Scores range from 0 to 100. An example item is “Help is needed to eat”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93.
Short portable mental status questionnaire (SPMSQ) [29,30] consists of 10 items aiming to assess cognitive impairment. Scores range from 0 to 10. An example item is “What day is today? (month, day, and year)”. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89.
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [31] consists of 12 items, each assessing the severity of a mental problem over the past few weeks using a four-point Likert scale (from 0 to 3). An example item is “I have recently felt that I am ill”. The score was used to generate a total score ranging from 0 to 36. The internal consistency for this study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94.

2.3. Design and Procedure

A cross-sectional correlational study was conducted. Data were collected from eight regions in Ecuador in late 2019. For spatial distribution of the areas in Ecuador from which data were collected, see Figure 1. All data were collected via a survey that included standardized sociodemographic scales, which was administered using printed material by a team of psychologists trained by the lead researcher. Data from caregivers and the elderly were collected separately (first from the caregiver, then from the elderly). The duration of the sessions averaged 20–25 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences application, version 21.0 for Mac (IBM, Madrid, Spain). The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the groups were expressed as means (M) and standard deviations (SD). Pearson’s correlation was conducted to examine the relationship between measured informal caregiver burden, and variables pertaining to the caregivers and their elderly patients. Inclusion in the prediction models of burden in informal male and female caregivers (enter method) was based on correlation analysis between burden and target variables. Student’s t-test (independent samples) was used to determine significant gender differences for quantitative variables. Levene’s and Shapiro–Wilk’s tests were used to assess the homogeneity of variance and normality, respectively. Effect size was measured using Cohen’s d. Lastly, independent multiple-regression models were conducted, including measured variables pertaining to caregivers and their elderly patients (predictive variables) and burden as the outcome variables. Significance adopted in analysis was p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Description of Caregiver and Elderly Samples

The final sample was made up of 688 family caregivers and 688 elderly patients from eight regions of Ecuador: 7.7% from Guayas (n = 53), 7.7% from Morona Santiago (n = 53), 2.9% from Esmeraldas (n = 20), 11.9% from Loja (n = 82), 8.7% from Azuay (n = 60), 4.5% from Cotopaxi (n = 31), 7.7% from Santo Domingo (n = 53), and 48.9% from Pichincha (n = 336), the closest area to the capital of the country, Quito. The caregivers’ relationship to their elderly patients was as follows: 12.5% (n = 86) were husband/wife, 63.8% (n = 439) were son/daughter, 13.4% (n = 92) were grandson/granddaughter, 5.5% (n = 38) were brother/sister, and 4.8% (n = 33) were daughter/son-in-law. Caregiver age ranged from 17 to 80 years old, and the age of elderly patients (older than 65 years old) ranged from 65 to 104 years old.
Females were over-represented among family caregivers. Both male and female caregivers provided care for the elderly for an average of 6 years. Considering their age at the time of the study, this means that most caregivers of the elderly in Ecuador assume their role in their early 40 s, regardless of their educational level (Table 1).

3.2. Gender Differences in Caregiver and Elderly Variables Associated with Caregiver Burden

Female caregivers reported higher statistically significantly degrees of burden and neuroticism than those of male caregivers. Females mostly cope through religion, and males through substance abuse (Table 2).

3.3. Pearson’s Correlation between Informal Caregivers’ Burden and Measured Variables

For informal male caregivers of the elderly, the degree of burden in informal caregivers was positively correlated with time providing care (r = 0.216, p = 0.012) and neuroticism (r = 0.316, p < 0.001), and negatively correlated with caregiver’s social support (r = −0.365, p < 0.001) and competence as caregiver (r = −0.488, p > 0.001). However, burden in informal male caregivers was not significantly associated with the perception of mental-health problems, as measured by the GHQ-12 (r = 0.026, p = 0.768), which, in fact, was positively and significantly associated with neuroticism (r = 0.319, p < 0.001). Interestingly, neither functional dependency (r = −0.0688, p = 0.104) nor cognitive impairment (r = 0.104, p = 0.0234) were significantly associated with burden, although they were significantly associated with each other (r = 0.480, p < 0.001).
For informal female caregivers of the elderly, the degree of burden in informal caregivers was positively correlated with time providing care (r = 0.146, p < 0.001), neuroticism (r = 0.367, p < 0.001), functional dependency (r = –0.173, p > 0.001), and cognitive impairment (r = 0.181, p < 0.001), and negatively correlated with caregiver’s social support (r = −0.302, p < 0.001) and competence as caregiver (r = −0.348, p > 0.001). However, burden in informal female caregivers was not significantly associated with the perception of mental-health problems, as measured by the GHQ-12 (r = 0.027, p = 0.537), which, in fact, was positively and significantly associated with neuroticism (r = 0.387, p < 0.001).

3.4. Prediction Models of Burden in Informal Caregivers of the Elderly

For informal male caregivers of the elderly, regression-model data indicated that the best predictors of burden were time providing care, the caregiver’s neuroticism, and the degree of the elderly’s functional dependency and cognitive impairment. The model accounted for 87.9% of the variance in burden (FΔ8114 = 457.367, p > 0.001). Competence as caregiver and social support failed to significantly predict burden in this model (Table 3).
For informal female caregivers, regression-model data indicated that the best predictors of burden were time providing care, caregiver’s competence, caregiver’s neuroticism, and elderly’s cognitive impairment. The model accounted for 88.1% of the variance in burden (FΔ8496 = 92.816, p > 0.001) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the predictive value of variables pertaining to caregivers and their elderly patients with respect to caregiver burden. To our knowledge, this is the largest study attempting to predict burden in informal caregivers in Ecuador and contributes to the development of interventions aimed at improving the well-being of caregivers of the elderly.
The results of this study suggest that some gender differences may be relevant in the prediction of burden in informal caregivers of the elderly. For males, objective strains that are directly related with providing care seem to be more relevant, for example, time providing care (duration) and degree of elderly demands (both functional and cognitive) [32,33]. For females, subjective strains, in particular those related with their competence as caregivers, seem to play a more central role in the prediction of burden in this sample. This result is consistent with previous studies focusing on caregiver competence [34]. In both cases, informal male and female caregivers’ time providing care and neuroticism remained significant predictors of burden. Indeed, as expected, the duration of the stressor providing care is the most important predictor of burden in informal caregivers. Furthermore, those who were more likely to be moody and to experience feelings such as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness were more likely to report higher levels of burden. This result is consistent with the previous literature [35,36].
The results of this study indicate that informal female caregivers not only double the percentage of informal caregivers for the elderly, but also report significantly higher levels of burden. This result is consistent with previous research that strongly associated females with the role of care provider [37]. These results are also in line with the previous literature where females presented greater levels of burnout syndrome than those of males in their working environment [38]. Other studies also found higher burnout, perceived stress, and emotional exhaustion in female than in male professors in colleges and high schools [39,40]. Along the same lines, some authors also found cultural differences, since the gender gap regarding emotional exhaustion is greater in females than in males, with this trend being significantly higher in female employees from the United States when compared to that in Europeans [41].
Informal male and female caregivers also differ in their main coping mechanisms [42]. Males tend to use more active stress-management mechanisms, such as those based on substance use, while females tend to rely on more passive mechanisms based on praying and hoping for the best. This result complements previous studies focusing on a higher preference for substance use in males [43]. The absence of effective coping systems in the face of caregivers’ highly demanding context on a professional and especially on an emotional level produces nonadaptive responses that can lead to drug abuse or be the basis for other psychological responses based on despair that can lead to psychopathologies such as anxiety and depression [44]. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the role of education in this professional group, not only to offer quality care, but also to preserve themselves from suffering pathologies and antisocial behaviors in the near future.
In sum, these results have potential implications for the development of social policies or recommendations to predict and reduce the burden in caregivers of the elderly or to design gender-specific interventions. This is important because providing care often results in poor health and quality of life [45,46], while at the same time, these consequences have been understudied or overlooked, so caregivers currently remain invisible patients [47]. In general, the results of this study support the importance of monitoring caregivers’ period of time providing care (i.e., their exposure to stress), for example, by including resting periods to recover, and the deleterious effects of caregivers’ neuroticism, underling the importance of moving towards a more mindful approach. Results also highlight the importance of enhancing elderly people’s cognitive function through performing cognitively stimulating tasks (e.g., chess, crosswords), and being socially and physically active. Particularly in female caregivers of the elderly, enhancing their perception of competence as caregivers seems to be an additional element to consider in reducing their burden. However, the results of this study must be taken with caution since the study is based on cross-sectional correlational design on a convenience sample; therefore, there are limitations in terms of generalization to other populations and inference of causality, and more research in this area is needed.

5. Conclusions

Females were over-represented with respect to males among caregivers of the elderly by a ratio of 4:1, and they reported significantly higher levels of burden than those of male caregivers. Overall, time providing care, neuroticism, and cognitive impairment of elderly patients were the best predictors of caregiver burden, and these should be considered for tailored interventions aimed at reducing burden in caregivers of the elderly.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R., S.V., M.R., B.P.-C.; formal analysis and data curation, P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R., B.P.-C., S.V., V.J.C.-S.; writing—review and editing, and supervision, P.R.; project administration, M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sánchez-Conde, P.; Beltrán-Velasco, A.I.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Influence of psychological profile in autonomic response of nursing students in their first hospital clinical stays. Physiol. Behav. 2019, 207, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jiménez, M.; Fernández-Navas, M.; Alvero-Cruz, J.R.; García-Romero, J.; García-Coll, V.; Rivilla, I.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Differences in Psychoneuroendocrine Stress Responses of High-Level Swimmers Depending on Autocratic and Democratic Coaching Style. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Belinchón-deMiguel, P.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Multidisciplinary analysis of differences between finisher and non-finisher ultra-endurance mountain athletes. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hormeño-Holgado, A.J.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Psychophysiological patterns related to success in a special operation selection course. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Robles-Pérez, J.J.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Could Combat Stress Affect Journalists’ News Reporting? A Psychophysiological Response. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramírez-Adrados, A.; Beltrán-Velasco, A.I.; Gonzalez-de-Ramos, C.; Fernández-Martínez, S.; Martínez-Pascual, B.; Fernández-Elías, V.E.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. The effect of final dissertation defense language, native vs. non-native, in the psychophysiological stress response of university students. Physiol. Behav. 2020, 224, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Redondo-Flórez, L.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Could academic experience modulate psychophysiological stress response of biomedical sciences students in laboratory? Physiol. Behav. 2020, 223, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez-Molina, J.; Robles-Pérez, J.J.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Psychophysiological and fine motor skill differences of elite and non-elite soldiers in an urban combat simulation. Mil. Psychol. 2019, 31, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Glaser, R.; Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. Stress-induced immune dysfunction: Implications for health. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2005, 5, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kemeny, M.E.; Schedlowski, M. Understanding the interaction between psychosocial stress and immune-related diseases: A stepwise progression. Brain Behav. Immun. 2007, 21, 1009–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fonareva, I.; Oken, B.S. Physiological and functional consequences of caregiving for relatives with dementia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2014, 26, 725–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Pérez-Cruz, M.; Parra-Anguita, L.; López-Martínez, C.; Moreno-Cámara, S.; del-Pino-Caso, R. Burden and Anxiety in Family Caregivers in the Hospital That Debut in Caregiving. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Aksoydan, E.; Aytar, A.; Blazeviciene, A.; van Bruchem–Visser, R.L.; Vaskelyte, A.; Mattace-Raso, F.; Acar, S.; Altintas, A.; Akgun-Citak, E.; Attepe-Ozden, S.; et al. Is training for informal caregivers and their older persons helpful? A systematic review. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2019, 83, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pearlin, L.I.; Mullan, J.T.; Semple, S.J.; Skaff, M.M. Caregiving and the stress process: An overview of concepts and their measures. Gerontologist 1990, 30, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cao, Y.; Yang, F. Objective and Subjective Dementia Caregiving Burden: The Moderating Role of Immanent Justice Reasoning and Social Support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Macía, P.; Gorbeña, S.; Gómez, A.; Barranco, M.; Iraurgi, I. Role of neuroticism and extraversion in the emotional health of people with cancer. Heliyon 2020, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shahly, V.; Chatterji, S.; Gruber, M.J.; Al-Hamzawi, A.; Alonso, J.; Andrade, L.H.; De Girolamo, G. Cross-national differences in the prevalence and correlates of burden among older family caregivers in the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Psychol. Med. 2013, 43, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Brodaty, H.; Donkin, M. Family caregivers of people with dementia. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2009, 11, 217–228. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruisoto, P.; Contador, I.; Fernández-Calvo, B.; Serra, L.; Jenaro, C.; Flores, N.; Rivera-Navarro, J. Mediating effect of social support on the relationship between resilience and burden in caregivers of people with dementia. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 86, 103952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ruisoto, P.; Contador, I.; Fernández-Calvo, B.; Palenzuela, D.; Ramos, F. Exploring the association between optimism and quality of life among informal caregivers of persons with dementia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2019, 31, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tan, S.B.; Williams, A.F.; Tan, E.K.; Clark, R.B.; Morris, M.E. Parkinson’s Disease Caregiver Strain in Singapore. Front. Neurol. 2020, 11, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bachner, Y.; O’Rourke, N. Reliability generalization of responses by care providers to the Zarit Burden Interview. Aging Ment. Health 2007, 11, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. González, G.M.C.; Herrara, B.S.; Rosero, E.V. Desarrollo y pruebas psicométricas del Instrumento “cuidar”-versión corta para medir la competencia de cuidado en el hogar. Salud 2016, 48, 222–231. [Google Scholar]
  24. Carver, C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. Int. J. Behav. Med. 1997, 4, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Broadhead, W.E.; Gehlbach, S.H.; Degruy, F.V.; Kaplan, B.H. The DukeUNC functional social support questionnaire: Measurement for social support in family medicine patients. Med. Care 1988, 26, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ayala, A.; Rodríguez-Blázquez, C.; Frades-Payo, B.; Forjaz, M.J.; Martínez-Martín, P.; Fernández-Mayoralas, G.; Rojo-Pérez, F. Psychometric properties of the Functional Social Support Questionnaire and the Loneliness Scale in non-institutionalized older adults in Spain. Gac. Sanit. 2012, 26, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Francis, L.J.; Brown, L.B.; Philipchalk, R. The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR—A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1992, 13, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mahoney, F.I.; Barthel, D.W. Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md Med. 1995, 14, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pfeiffer, E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1975, 23, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martínez de la Iglesia, J.; Dueñas Herrero, R.; Onís Vilchis, M.C.; Aguado Taberné, C.; Albert, C.; Luque, R. Adaptación y validación al castellano del cuestionario de Pfeiffer (SPMSQ) para detectar la existencia de deterioro cognitivo en personas mayores de 65 años. Rev. Med. Clin. 2001, 117, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Goldberg, D.; Williams, P. A User’s Guide to the General. Health Questionnaire; NFER-Nelson: Windsor, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  32. Riffin, C.; Van Ness, P.H.; Wolff, J.L.; Fried, T. Multifactorial Examination of caregiver burden in a national sample of family and unpaid caregivers. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2019, 67, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dauphinot, V.; Ravier, A.; Novais, T.; Delphin-Combe, F.; Mouchoux, C.; Krolak-Salmon, P. Risk factors of caregiver burden evolution, for patients with subjective cognitive decline or neurocognitive disorders: A longitudinal analysis. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2016, 17, 1037–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Win, K.K.; Chong, M.S.; Ali, N.B.; Chan, M.P.; Lim, W.S. Burden among Family Caregivers of Dementia in the Oldest-Old: An Exploratory Study. Front. Med. 2017, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Van der Lee, J.; Bakker, T.J.; Duivenvoorden, H.J.; Dröes, R.M. Multivariate models of subjective caregiver burden in dementia: A systematic review. Ageing Res. Rev. 2014, 15, 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Luchetti, M.; Terracciano, A.; Stephan, Y.; Aschwanden, D.; Sutin, A.R. Personality and psychological health in caregivers of older relatives: A case-control study. Aging Ment. Health 2020, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, S.K.; Park, M.; Lee, Y.; Choi, S.H.; Moon, S.Y.; Seo, S.W.; Moon, Y. Influence of personality on depression, burden, and health-related quality of life in family caregivers of persons with dementia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2017, 29, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. González-Abraldes, I.; Millán-Calenti, J.C.; Lorenzo-López, L.; Maseda, A. The influence of neuroticism and extraversion on the perceived burden of dementia caregivers: An exploratory study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2013, 56, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Muñoz-Bermejo, L.; Adsuar, J.C.; Postigo-Mota, S.; Casado-Verdejo, I.; de Melo-Tavares, C.M.; Garcia-Gordillo, M.Á.; Carlos-Vivas, J. Relationship of Perceived Social Support with Mental Health in Older Caregivers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E. The measurement of experienced burnout. J. Organ. Behav. 1981, 2, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aparisi, D.; Torregrosa, M.S.; Ingles, C.J.; García-Fernández, J.M. Stress, Burnout and Health in a Sample of Spanish Teachers. Adv. High. Educ. 2019, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rodríguez-Madrid, M.N.; Del Río-Lozano, M.; Fernandez-Peña, R.; Jiménez-Pernett, J.; García-Mochón, L.; Lupiañez-Castillo, A.; García-Calvente, M.M. Gender Differences in Social Support Received by Informal Caregivers: A Personal Network Analysis Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Purvanova, R.K.; Muros, J.P. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gottschalk, S.; Konig, H.H.; Brettschneider, C. The association between informal caregiving and behavioral risk factors: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 65, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Adelman, R.D.; Tmanova, L.L.; Delgado, D.; Dion, S.; Lachs, M.S. Caregiver burden: A clinical review. JAMA 2014, 311, 1052–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Schulz, R.; Beach, S.R. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA 1999, 282, 2215–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Schoenmakers, B.; Buntinx, F.; Delepeleire, J. What is the role of the general practitioner towards the family caregiver of a community-dwelling demented relative? A systematic literature review. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2009, 27, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 17 07338 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution of the data-collection areas in Ecuador.
Figure 1. Distribution of the data-collection areas in Ecuador.
Ijerph 17 07338 g001
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic information of informal caregivers and elderly.
Table 1. Sociodemographic information of informal caregivers and elderly.
Informal Caregiver SociodemographicsMales
M ± SD (n = 139)		Females
M ± SD (n = 549)
Age (years)47.6 ± 14.849.6 ± 14.7
Providing care (years)6.2 ± 4.55.9 ± 4.2
% (n)% (n)
Marital status (S/M/D/W) 41 (57)/52 (71)/11 (6.5)/027.1 (149)/56.6 (343)/12.6 (37)/3.6 (20)
Ethnicity (M, W, O)82 (114)/13.7 (19)/4.3 (6)93.4 (512)/3.5 (19)/3 (15)
Education level (B, S, C) 8.6 (12)/38.8 (54)/46 (64)22.4 (123)/41.0 (225)/31.5 (173)
Elderly SociodemographicsMales
M ± SD (n = 272)		Females
M ± SD (n = 416)
Age (years) 80.6 ± 9.081.3 ± 9.3
% (n)% (n)
Marital status (S/M/D/W)5.5 (15)/60.3 (164)/033.7 (140)/49.5 (206)/13.7 (57)/3.1 (13)
Ethnicity (M, W, O)89.7 (244)/7.4 (20)/3 (8)90.6 (377)/6 (25)/3.3 (14)
Education level (B, S, C)59.2 (161)/19.9 (54)/8.8 (24)15.9 (66)/42.1 (175)/35.8 (149)
Marital status: S = single, M = married, D = divorced, W = widowed; ethnicity: M = mixed racial or ethnic ancestry, W = white, O = other; education level: B = basic, S = secondary, C = college.
Table
Table 2. Gender differences in informal caregiver and elderly variables.
Table 2. Gender differences in informal caregiver and elderly variables.
Informal Caregiver VariablesMales
(n = 136)
M ± SD		Females
(n = 541)
M ± SD		tdfpCohen’s d
Caregiver’s burden (Zarit)39.4 ± 17.645 ± 17.7–3.3006680.001 **–0.317
Caregiver’s competency (CUIDAR)46 ± 9.746.5 ± 8.9–0.4556660.649–0.044
Caregiver’s general health (GHQ12)17 ± 8.3217.9 ± 8.9–1.0676770.286–0.102
Caregiver’s social support (DUKE11)36.9 ± 10.436.4 ± 10.80.4406820.6600.042
Caregiver’s coping style—“substance abuse” (COPE)0.7 ± 1.40.3 ± 0.84.843682<0.001 **0.460
Caregiver’s coping style—“religion” (COPE)2.9 ± 23.8 ± 2–4.609683<0.001 **–0.439
Caregiver’s neuroticism (EPQRA) 2.5 ± 1.83.1 ± 1.8–3.2346810.001 **–0.310
Caregiver’s extraversion (EPQRA) 23.9 ± 1.63.7 ± 1.71.1736820.2410.112
Elderly VariableMales
(n = 266)
M ± SD		Females
(n = 411)
M ± SD		tdfpCohen’s d
Elderly’s cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer)3.6 ± 3.34.7 ± 3.5−3.8926820.001 **−0.304
Elderly’s functional independency (Barthel)57.8 ± 32.7159.3 ± 31.9−0.6016750.548−0.047
Zarit = Zarit Burden Interview score; CUIDAR = Cuidar scale score; GHQ12 = General Health Questionnaire score; COPE = Spanish Version of the Brief COPE score; EPQRA = Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated score; Pfeiffer = Short portable mental status questionnaire score; Barthel = Barthel index score; df = degrees of freedom; p < 0.001 **.
Table
Table 3. Prediction of burden in informal male caregivers.
Table 3. Prediction of burden in informal male caregivers.
Predictor βtpLower 95% CI Upper 95% CI VIF
Time providing care (years)0.3373.872<0.001 **0.0580.1791.064
Caregiver’s competence (CUIDAR)0.02803350.739−0.2500.3511.655
Caregiver’s social support (DUKE)−0.050−0.4840.629−0.4150.2521.457
Caregiver’s neuroticism (EPQRA)0.3493.798<0.001 **1.6015.0901.198
Elderly’s functional dependency (Barthel)0.04164.592<0.001 **0.1280.3221.562
Elderly’s cognitive impairment (Pfeifer)0.2382.5190.013 *0.2682.2361.447
Zarit = Zarit Burden Interview score; CUIDAR= Cuidar scale score; GHQ12= General Health Questionnaire score; COPE = Spanish Version of the Brief COPE score; EPQRA = Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated score; Pfeiffer = Short portable mental status questionnaire score; Barthel = Barthel index score; β = Unstandardized Beta Coefficient; CI = Confidence Interval; VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; p < 0.05 *; p < 0.001 **.
Table
Table 4. Prediction of burden in informal female caregivers.
Table 4. Prediction of burden in informal female caregivers.
PredictorβtpLower 95% CI Upper 95% CI VIF
Time providing care (years)0.2585.992<0.001 **0.0630.1251.035
Caregiver’s competence (CUIDAR)0.0882.1970.0290.0180.3221.530
Caregiver’s social support (DUKE)0.0360.7150.475−0.1020.2181.442
Caregiver’s neuroticism (EPQRA)0.52811.218<0.001 **4.1485.9101.345
Elderly’s functional dependency (Barthel)0.0621.3530.177−0.0150.0821.285
Elderly’s cognitive impairment (Pfeifer)0.2304.938<0.001 **0.6851.5901.262
Zarit = Zarit Burden Interview score; CUIDAR = Cuidar scale score; GHQ12 = General Health Questionnaire score; COPE = Spanish Version of the Brief COPE score; EPQRA = Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated score; Pfeiffer = Short portable mental status questionnaire score; Barthel = Barthel index score; β = Unstandardized Beta Coefficient; CI = Confidence Interval; VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; p < 0.001 **.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruisoto, P.; Ramírez, M.; Paladines-Costa, B.; Vaca, S.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Predicting Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers for the Elderly in Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197338

AMA Style

Ruisoto P, Ramírez M, Paladines-Costa B, Vaca S, Clemente-Suárez VJ. Predicting Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers for the Elderly in Ecuador. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197338

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruisoto, Pablo, Marina Ramírez, Belén Paladines-Costa, Silvia Vaca, and Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez. 2020. "Predicting Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers for the Elderly in Ecuador" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197338

APA Style

Ruisoto, P., Ramírez, M., Paladines-Costa, B., Vaca, S., & Clemente-Suárez, V. J. (2020). Predicting Caregiver Burden in Informal Caregivers for the Elderly in Ecuador. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197338

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop