Characteristics of caregivers submitted to music therapy after the death of loved ones

Abstract

Objective: To describe the characteristics of bereaved caregivers submitted to post-loss music therapy. Method: This is a cross-sectional database from a randomized clinical trial that performed music therapy for caregivers who lost their loved ones to cancer. The following variables were used for this analysis: sociodemographic, religious beliefs, previous sound-musical experiences, and experiences related to care, loss and repair processes. Descriptive statistical analyzes were performed. Results: Of the 69 participants, 85.5% had a strong bond/secure attachment with their loved ones; 68.1% followed a long death and dying process (> 6 months), which was related to a chronic disease; 88.4% did not participate in conspiracy of silence, suggesting a satisfactory communication; 60.9% reported receiving spiritual/religious support, suggesting healthy and continent support; and all participated in funeral rites. Conclusion: The process of elaborating the bereavement of caregivers indicated the presence of protective factors.

Effect of Self-Chosen Music in Alleviating the Burden on Family Caregivers of Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomised Controlled Trial

“…Among the caregivers in our sample, 57% presented a high level of burden, which is in line with previous research findings [35]. Most were female, had no external employment, and did not receive assistance for caregiving, which also corroborates previous reports [35] and reflects the representativeness of our sample.…”

“…Among the caregivers in our sample, 57% presented a high level of burden, which is in line with previous research findings [35]. Most were female, had no external employment, and did not receive assistance for caregiving, which also corroborates previous reports [35] and reflects the representativeness of our sample. Alternatively, a study conducted with caregivers of patients with advanced cancer or chronic disease [30] reported higher levels of burden than in our case (mean CSI score: 8.5 vs. 6.8 in our study population).…”