ArticleIndian journal of palliative care
Comparison of Two Caregiver Burden Scales in a Low-resource Primary Palliative Care Setting and Deriving a Three-item Caregiver Burden Inventory.
Article in Indian journal of palliative care. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Malayalam versions of the 9-item Achutha Menon Centre-Caregiver Burden Inventory (AMC-CBI) with the 22-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-22), hypothesising that caregiver burden in palliative home care settings could be measured comparably using either tool. We also tried to identify a global question or brief screening items for caregiver burden based on the performance of the AMC-CBI items relative to the ZBI-22. In addition, we explored how participants understood and interpreted the ZBI-22 items. Materials and Methods: The study used a convergent mixed-methods design comprising a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. The survey covered 60 adult primary caregivers of palliative care patients receiving home care in rural Kollam, Kerala, who were interviewed telephonically using a structured interview schedule with the ZBI-22 and the AMC-CBI scales and demographic, socioeconomic and caregiving-related details. Analysis was through descriptive statistics, internal consistency assessments using alpha and omega coefficients and validity assessments using agreement methods on z-transformed scores available in the SimplyAgree package for R and Jamovi, including average bias and limits of agreement and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses. Qualitative interviews were conducted telephonically, audio recorded and done by AMC-CBI. Cognitive interviews ( Results: Internal consistency was high for both tools (α and ω > 0.8). Three AMC-CBI items ('lost hope', 'feel sad', and 'financial burden') were selected for a Brief AMC-CBI (ω = 0.787). Both AMC-CBI Conclusion: Both tools, the AMC-CBI and Brief AMC-CBI correctly categorised caregiver burden levels in comparison to the ZBI-22, but AMC-CBI was more contextually appropriate. Selecting the full or the Brief AMC-CBI for caregiver burden assessments would be a thoughtful decision that considers the unique requirements and considerations present in palliative care settings. Further studies on the AMC-CBI or its short form for inter-rater reliability assessments and concordance with the ZBI-22 in larger samples would be useful for enhancing the applicability of these tools.
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.