Psychological wellbeing among carers of people with spinal cord injury: a preliminary investigation from South India

Study design: This study was designed as a cross-sectional one. A set of structured questionnaires was administered. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to explore the psychological response of the caregivers of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess the burden of caregiving for SCI persons living in the community in Fiji. Setting: Fiji, South Pacific. Methods: A total of 30 primary caregivers of persons with SCI. The Index of Psychological Well-Being (IPWB) was used to assess the psychological impact of care giving, and Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI) was used to evaluate the burden associated with caregiving for persons with SCI. Barthel Index (BI) scale was used to measure the functional abilities of the care recipients. Results: The majority of the participants (n ¼ 20) were women, who had an ethnic Fijian background (n ¼ 18) and were married (n ¼ 18), and were spouses (n ¼ 13). Mean BI of the persons with SCI was 7.1 (s.d. ¼ 5.23) on a 0-20 scale, with 90% (n ¼ 27) suffering from moderate-to-very severe disability (BIo15). The mean duration of caregiving was 6.1 years (s.d. ¼ 4.23). On average, the caregivers provided 6.1 h (s.d. ¼ 2.19) of caregiving per day. The experiences of caregiving adversely affected the caregiver psychological well-being. Participants demonstrated high levels of time-dependent and development burden. Caregiving was significantly related to the number of hours spent providing care (r s ¼ 0.35, Po0.05), and the older caregiver age (r s ¼ 0.46, Po0.01). Conclusion: Being a primary caregiver of a SCI person contributes to caregiver burden and psychological distress. The findings indicate that the contributions of these people should be recognized and interventions should be tailored not only toward the needs of the care recipients but also to the needs of the caregivers.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological impact and the burden of caregiving for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community in Fiji

Gajraj-Singh

2011

“…Other parameters, such as carers' stress and their quality if life might also be included. [31][32][33][34] Conclusions and implications…”

Section: Level Of Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation outcomes following traumatic spinal cord injury in a tertiary spinal cord injury centre: a comparison with an international standard

Chan

2005

Study design: Retrospective descriptive analysis of data of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) in a tertiary SCI centre. Objectives: To identify the characteristics of the rehabilitation outcomes of patients with different levels of traumatic SCI and to compare the results with data reported in the American Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. Setting: A newly established tertiary SCI centre in Tai Po Hospital, Tai Po, Hong Kong. Methods: A total of 33 patients with traumatic SCI admitted in 2002 were included in the study. They were classified into different ASIA subgroups based on their levels and completeness of injury. The functional status changes measured by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)t (on admission, placement and upon discharge, and at 1 and 3 months post discharge) and discharge placement were recorded as rehabilitation outcomes. Results: A total, 24 patients were tetraplegic while nine were paraplegic. Seven and two from tetraplegic and paraplegic groups were readmitted with late complications due to urinary tract infection, spasticity and/or occurrence of pressure sores. The mean age was found to be 48.36 (SD ¼ 15.64) years. In all, 16 (48.48%) sustained the injury from falling from height. The trend of FIM motor scores at discharge across different ASIA subgroups appeared to be comparable to those reported in the American Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine with scores generally lower. Significant functional improvements during the hospital phase were found in the two tetraplegic and paraplegic ASIA D subgroups (t(3) ¼ 3.430, Po0.05; t(2) ¼ 4.083, P ¼ 0.55, respectively). Significant differences were also revealed among subgroups (F(7,32) ¼ 6.625, Po0.0005) with lower level tetraplegic groups appearing to stay much longer in the rehabilitation centre. In all, 64.5% of newly diagnosed patients returned to live in the community. Conclusions: This report gives a preliminary overview on the characteristics of rehabilitation outcomes in one of the SCI centres in Hong Kong in relation to the international standard. Longitudinal study with larger population and community integration outcomes might be included in the future to reveal a better picture in the SCI rehabilitation in Hong Kong.Spinal Cord (2005) 43, 489-498.

“…13 Several studies have shown negative effects of giving support on the quality of life of the caregivers of persons with SCI. 11,[14][15][16][17][18][19] Weitzenkamp et al studied stress and depression in 124 spouses of persons with SCI that had been injured more than 23 years ago. Spouses who were caregivers reported higher levels of stress, burnout, fatigue, resentment and depression compared to spouses who were not caregivers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unalan et al, 16 for example, found no correlation between the seriousness of the SCI and complications and caregivers' quality of life, whereas Schulz et al 20 reported that the amounts of assistance provided for the persons with SCI were strongly correlated with depression of caregivers. Further, most studies used small sample sizes 14,16,18 or used mixed samples of partners, other family members, nonfamily members or professional caregivers. 5,10,13,14,16 As a result, the burden of support as perceived by partners of persons with SCI still needs clarification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Burden of support for partners of persons with spinal cord injuries

Post

Bloemen

Witte³

2005

111

Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: (1) To describe the support given to persons with spinal cord injuries (SCI) by their partners, (2) to describe the perceived burden of support by partners and (3) to examine predictors of perceived burden of support. Setting: The Netherlands. Methods: All members of the Dutch patients organisation DON (N ¼ 1004) and their caregivers, if applicable, were invited. Physical disability of the person with SCI was measured using the Barthel Index (BI). A number of secondary conditions, other practical problems and psychosocial problems were recorded. Partner support was described using a list of ADLsupport, other practical support and emotional support. Burden of support was measured by a six-item measure (Cronbach's alpha 0.92), Nonparametric descriptive statistics and correlations were used. Linear regression was used to identify predictors of caregiver burden. Results: Responses were obtained from 461 persons with SCI. Of 265 couples, patient as well as partner data were available. Mean age of the partners was 49.4 years (SD 12.2) and 69.8% were women. Mean BI of the persons with SCI was12.3 (SD 4.7) on a 0-20 scale and 60.4% were seriously disabled (BIo15). Most partners provided various kinds of support. ADLsupport and other practical support were given much more often by partners of persons with serious disability, but less difference was seen regarding emotional support. Professional (paid) support was obtained by 45.3% of all couples. Perceived burden of support was high in 24.8% of partners of persons with serious disabilities against 3.9% of partners of persons with minor disabilities. Significant predictors of caregiver burden were (in order of importance) the amount of ADL support given, psychological problems of the patient, partner age, partner gender, BI score and time after injury (total explained variance 47%). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of partners of persons with SCI suffer from serious burden of support. Prevention of caregiver burnout should be part of the lifelong care for persons with SCI.