ArticleBMC palliative care2025
A short form tool for clinical assessment of caregivers' reaction.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaregivers take on several tasks to support the patients during their disease trajectory. The price caregivers pay might have impact on their health, schedule, necessity of support from others, economic situation, and quality of life. Therefore, health care personnel need assessment tools to capture the caregivers' reaction and situation. Clinical practice is characterized as a busy setting and long assessment tools might be time-consuming to complete.
methodsThis study aims to present a short form from an original (long) version of The Caregiver Reaction Assessment (24 items) and to show how these tools correlate in a repeated measures design with three assessment points. Demographics and clinical variables are analysed by means of descriptive statistics. To assess possible sex differences for the long version of The Caregiver Reaction Assessment, the short version of it, and a single item assessing global quality of life, we performed independent sample t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis.
resultsSufficient correlation was shown between the long version (24 items), the short version (6 items), and the single item measuring global quality of life. We present how assessment of the caregivers' reaction and situation can be managed by means of a stepwise approach with one single item on quality of life as the first step, a short form tool on caregiver reaction as the next, and finally a long version of a reputable tool, The Caregiver Reaction Assessment, as the third step.
conclusionIn this study we have shown how different tools correlate. We suggest these tools to be used in a three-step approach to assess caregivers' reaction and situation.
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.