Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31902052›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020

Development and validation of the University of Washington caregiver stress and benefit scales for caregivers of children with or without serious health conditions.

Dagmar Amtmann, Kendra S Liljenquist, Alyssa Bamer, Arnold R Gammaitoni, Carey R Aron, Bradley S Galer, Mark P Jensen

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Dagmar AmtmannDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354237, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. dagmara@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1142-9729
Kendra S LiljenquistDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354237, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Alyssa BamerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354237, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Arnold R GammaitoniMedical and Scientific Affairs, Zogenix, Inc, 5858 Horton Street, Suite 455, Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA.
Carey R AronMedical and Scientific Affairs, Zogenix, Inc, 5858 Horton Street, Suite 455, Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA.
Bradley S GalerMedical and Scientific Affairs, Zogenix, Inc, 5858 Horton Street, Suite 455, Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA.
Mark P JensenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354237, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

Funding

Zogenix, Inc. #ZXIIS2015-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop item response theory (IRT)-based item banks and short forms to measure stress and benefit related to caregiving for children, including children with epilepsy or other serious health conditions.

methodsItems developed with feedback from neurologists and caregivers of children with epilepsy were tested in cognitive interviews and administered to caregivers of children with severe epilepsy (N = 128), down syndrome (N = 143) and muscular dystrophy (N = 129), as well as a community sample of US caregivers (N = 322). IRT was used to analyze the data. Test-retest reliability was assessed using a two-way random effects (2,1) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Validity was assessed by a pattern of correlations with relevant constructs (stress, depression, anxiety, and resilience) and by the pattern of scores by known groups.

resultsCaregivers of children with serious health conditions reported more stress and less benefit than the general sample. The final caregiver stress item bank (k = 19) and the caregiver benefit item bank (k = 13) were calibrated using IRT and centered on a sample of community caregivers representative of the US general caregiver population. Short form scores are highly correlated with full bank scores (r ≥ 0.98) and IRT reliability exceed 90% for most levels. Test-retest reliability was high (ICC > 0.92) for banks and short forms.

conclusionsResults provide strong support for reliability and validity of the caregiver stress and benefit scores. Instruments are publicly available, flexible, brief, and provide reliable and valid scores of caregiver stress and benefit of caregivers of children with and without serious health conditions.

Indexed as

AnxietyCaregiversChildChronic DiseaseDepressionDown SyndromeEpilepsyFamilyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscular DystrophiesPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsCaregiver burdenEpileptic encephalopathyItem bankItem response theorySevere childhood epilepsy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.