2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.10.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tools for measuring the impact of informal caregiving of the elderly: A literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
108
0
10

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 126 publications
2
108
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The various tools that have been developed to assess the impact of caregiving, have mostly been confined to the negative rather than both negative and positive aspects of caregiving (Van Durme, Macq, Jeanmart, & Gobert, 2012;Whalen & Buchholz, 2009). Of these instruments, the most studied and clinically used is the Zarit Burden Inventory, which mainly evaluates caregiver strain and was developed for caregivers of persons with dementia (Van Durme et al, 2012).…”
Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The various tools that have been developed to assess the impact of caregiving, have mostly been confined to the negative rather than both negative and positive aspects of caregiving (Van Durme, Macq, Jeanmart, & Gobert, 2012;Whalen & Buchholz, 2009). Of these instruments, the most studied and clinically used is the Zarit Burden Inventory, which mainly evaluates caregiver strain and was developed for caregivers of persons with dementia (Van Durme et al, 2012).…”
Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…page), or the Camberwell Assessment of Needs in Elderly (CANE) from the United Kingdom (Reynolds et al, 2000), or a measure of depressive symptoms such as the widely used Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; http://www.ncdhhs.gov/mhddsas/providers/ DWI/dualdiagnosis/CES-D_Scale.pdf), or a Risk Appraisal Measure such as was developed by the REACH II project (Czaja et al, 2009), to the use of much more elaborate assessment protocols (e.g., as recommended in a monograph by Family Caregiver Alliance at http://caregiver.org/caregiver/ jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=1699). In addition, the interested reader is referred to several recently published review papers on measures for research in dementia caregiving (Brodaty, 2007;Moniz-Cook et al, 2008;Van Durme, 2012).…”
Section: What Makes Evidence-based Programs Successful?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The highest burden, however, was associated with coexisting musculoskeletal conditions because these conditions might affect mobility and patients would thus require more assistance with daily activities. Other explanations were the different tools used for caregiver burden assessment such as Caregiving Burden Scale (CBS), Caregivers Strain Index (CSI), Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI), Caregiver Reactions Assessment (CRA), Physical Caregiving Responsibility Inventory (PCRI), and Positive Caregiver Scale (PCS) (Bhattacharjee et al, 2012;Muangpaisan et al, 2010;Rombough et al, 2006;Van Durme et al, 2012). These different scoring methods make it hard to compare the results directly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) is .85. It assesses mainly in the caregiver burden dimension (Arai et al, 1997;Carod-Artal et al, 2009;Van Durme, Macq, Jeanmart, & Gobert, 2012). Additionally, the Thai version is validated, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .92 for caregiver burden in Thailand in interviews of caregivers of patients with chronic illnesses (Toonsiri, Sunsern, & Lawang, 2011).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%