Trial reportJournal of palliative medicine2014
Exploring the collective hospice caregiving experience.
Trial report in Journal of palliative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychometric properties of carer-reported outcome measures in palliative care: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Hospice Family Caregiver Involvement in Care Plan Meetings: A Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2017Trial
- Article
- Spousal Caregivers Are Caregiving Alone In The Last Years Of Life.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2019Article
- Family Caregiver Communication Tool: a new measure for tailoring communication with cancer caregivers.Psycho-oncology · 2017Article
- Spouse cancer caregivers' burden and distress at entry to home hospice: The role of relationship quality.Journal of social and personal relationships · 2016Article
- Addressing Methodological Challenges in Large Communication Data Sets: Collecting and Coding Longitudinal Interactions in Home Hospice Cancer Care.Health communication · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCollective caregiving, performed by caregivers working in pairs (informal primary and secondary caregivers working together), is common in the hospice setting. Research suggests that caregiving pairs may experience different caregiver outcomes. However, little is known about how caregiving pairs differ from solo caregivers (informal primary caregivers) on outcome measures.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to determine whether being in a caregiver pair affected caregiver anxiety and depression and how outcomes changed over time.
designA mixed model analysis was used. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Hospice caregivers (260 solo caregivers and 44 caregivers in 22 pairs) who participated in a larger, randomized controlled trial completed caregiver measures upon hospice admission and periodically until the death of the patient or hospice decertification. MEASUREMENTS: Measured were caregiver quality of life, social support, anxiety, and depression.
resultsCaregiver pairs had higher anxiety and depression scores than solo caregivers. Emotional, financial, and physical quality of life were associated with decreased depression, whereas only emotional and financial quality of life were correlated with lower levels of anxiety. Social support was associated with lower levels of depression and anxiety.
conclusionsDespite assumptions that social support is positively facilitated vis-a-vis collective caregiving, caregiving pairs may be at higher risk for anxiety and depression. Future research is needed to address why individuals become anxious and/or depressed when working as part of a caregiving pair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.