Caregiver Burden and self-efficacy: A Hospital- based Comparison between General and Special Ward Patients

Abstract

Background: India has one of the largest health-care systems in the world, and caregivers play an important role in assisting the patients in seeking services, supporting the patient during treatment and also in recovery, as there is a culturally determined emphasis on kinship obligations, with families playing a prominent role in all decisions regarding treatment. The burden this places on the caregiver can undermine their physical, psychological, and functional health. There is a paucity of studies examining caregiver burden in relation to type caregivers (formal or informal) and type of wards (general or special). Our study aims to explore whether their burden and coping differ in relation to the type of ward services. Aims: The aim of the study was (i) to compare the burden among caregivers of general ward patients with that of special ward patients and (ii) to study the satisfaction of hospital services by caregivers in general ward versus special wards. Methods: Sixty caregivers each of general ward and special ward patients were assessed. The caregiver burden scale was utilized to appraise burden, and their coping was evaluated with the revised caregiver efficacy scale. Results: Caregiver burden was more for special wards compared to general wards. Caregiver self-efficacy was more among the primary caregivers of general ward patients. Conclusions: Caregiver burden and self-efficacy play an important role in satisfaction with the service quality of the health-care organization. Education about various aspects of caregiving and early identification of burden areas should be done to allow optimal management strategies tailored for the individual patient and caregiver.

The Health of Companions: Evaluation of Care Burden, Psychological Distress and Psychiatric Disorders of the Companions of Patients in the Medical Ward of a University Hospital

“…The U.S. Family Caregiver Alliance reports that upwards of 75% of all caregivers are female [27]. In a study by Chandran et al [28] in India, 70% of family members who care for hospitalized patients are women. In a qualitative study by Passos et al [12] in Brazil, 81% of family caregivers who care for hospitalized patients are women.…”

“…This higher score may be due to the high burden of care for oncology patients. Chandran et al [28] conducted a study in India, and the average ZCBS score of the caregivers for the patients in a private room was 45.4; the ZCBS score of the caregivers for the patients in general room was 35.4. The difference between the results of this study and our results might be due to cultural beliefs and habits between the two communities and the conditions of the hospitals.…”

“…Each of the statements is answered using a Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 0 to 4 (never, rarely, sometimes, quite frequently, and nearly always). The composite score was then calculated, and the burden was graded as follows: little or no burden (≤20), mild burden (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40), moderate to severe burden (41-60), and severe burden (>61-88). The ZCBS has good internal consistency reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .92.…”

The Health of Companions: Evaluatıon of Care Burden, Psychologıcal Dıstress and Psychıatrıc Dısorders of the Companıons of Patıents ın the Medıcal Ward of Akdenız Unıversıty Hospıtal

“…[1,11] The U.S. Family Caregiver Alliance reports that upwards of 75% of all caregivers are female. [27] In a study by Chandran et al [28] in India, 70% of family members who care for hospitalized patients are women. In a qualitative study by Passos et al [12] in Brazil, 81% of family caregivers who care for hospitalized patients are women.…”

“…Each of the statements is answered using a Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 0 to 4 (never, rarely, sometimes, quite frequently, and nearly always). The composite score was then calculated, and the burden was graded as follows: little or no burden (≤20), mild burden (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40), moderate to severe burden (41-60), and severe burden (>61-88). The ZCBS has good internal consistency reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92.…”