Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30545318›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2018

Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community.

Raquel S D Betini, John P Hirdes, Nancy Curtin-Telegdi, Lisa Gammage, Jennifer Vansickle, Jeff Poss, George Heckman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Raquel S D BetiniUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. rbetini@uwaterloo.ca.
John P HirdesUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Nancy Curtin-TelegdiUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Lisa GammageNucleus Independent Living, Oakville, ON, L6H 6P5, Canada.
Jennifer VansickleHamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network, Hamilton, ON, L8J 0G5, Canada.
Jeff PossUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
George HeckmanUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance.

methodsIn this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured.

resultsThe CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four 'wellbeing' levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32-9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability.

conclusionThe CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions.

Indexed as

Home NursingAgedCaregiversCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansLogistic ModelsLong-Term CareMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportCarerHome careinterRAILong-term care homeScreener

Identifiers

PMID30545318
PMCPMC6293658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.