Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40680179›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2025

Quality of Life Among Family Caregivers of Individuals With Rare Diseases: Web-Based Population Study on the Validity and Reliability of the Polish World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF Questionnaire.

Piotr Jabkowski, Jan Domaradzki, Dariusz Walkowiak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Piotr Jabkowski *Faculty of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8650-9558
Jan Domaradzki *Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Rokietnicka 7, Poznań, 60-806, Poland, 48 695324630.ORCID 0000-0002-9710-832X
Dariusz Walkowiak *Department of Organization and Management in Health Care, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8874-2401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Caring for individuals with rare diseases (RDs) presents unique challenges that can significantly impact caregivers' quality of life (QoL). The World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) is a widely used tool for assessing QoL across different populations. Objective: This study examines the QoL of caregivers of individuals with RDs and evaluates the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF in this population. Methods: A self-administered, anonymous, computer-assisted web-based survey was conducted among family caregivers of individuals with RDs in Poland between March and August 2024. Due to the lack of a national registry of patients with RDs, participants were recruited through convenience sampling via associations, foundations, and organizations of patients with RDs. Eligibility criteria included being 18 years and older of age, speaking Polish, being a caregiver of a person with a confirmed RD diagnosis, and providing informed consent. The survey included sociodemographic questions and the Polish version of the WHOQOL-BREF, which assesses QoL across 4 domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the instrument's structural validity. Results: A total of 942 caregivers of individuals with various RDs participated in the study. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the 4-domain structure, with further improvement in a finally modified WHOQOL-BREF model (χ2243=1043.0; P<.001; Comparative Fit Index=0.919; Tucker-Lewis Index=0.907; root-mean-square error of approximation=0.059). Internal consistency was satisfactory, with Cronbach α values ranging from 0.70 (social relationships) to 0.84 (psychological health). Mean domain scores on a scale of 0-100 were 50.2 (SE 0.59; physical health), 54.9 (SE 0.59; psychological health), 51.3 (SE 0.67; social relationships), and 52.1 (SE 0.56; environment), with minimal floor and ceiling effects (≤1.4%) across domains. Younger female caregivers reported significantly lower psychological health (eg, mean 43.6, SE 0.59 vs mean 59.9, SE 10.0 for younger male caregivers) and social relationships (mean 39.3, SE 3.34 vs mean 55.0, SE 4.75) well-being compared to other groups. Exactly 151 (16%) of caregivers rated their overall QoL as poor or very poor, and 289 (30.7%) were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their health, with female caregivers reporting more dissatisfaction (n=263, 32.4%) than male caregivers (n=26, 20%). Overall, our findings demonstrate the robust psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF among caregivers of people with RDs and provide domain-specific normative data to guide future research and interventions. Conclusions: The WHOQOL-BREF is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing QoL among caregivers of individuals with RDs, though the social relationship domain may require further refinement. Caregivers experience varying QoL outcomes depending on demographic factors, highlighting the need for targeted support interventions. Future research should explore cultural adaptations and potential supplementary modules to enhance the instrument's applicability in caregiver populations.

Indexed as

CaregiversQuality of LifeRare DiseasesAdultAgedFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPolandPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health Organizationcaregiversquality of liferare diseasesvalidationWHOQOL-BREFWorld Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF

Identifiers

PMID40680179
PMCPMC12294646

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.