Kent Erin E, Mollica Michelle A, Dionne-Odom J Nicholas, Ferrer Rebecca A, Jensen Roxanne E, Ornstein Katherine A, Smith Ashley Wilder
Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Outcomes Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Palliat Support Care. 2020 Oct;18(5):519-527. doi: 10.1017/S1478951520000036.
A priority focus on palliative and supportive care is helping the 43.5 million caregivers who care for individuals with serious illness. Lacking support may lead to caregiver distress and poorer care delivery to patients with serious illness. We examined the potential of instrumental support (assistance with material and task performance) to mitigate distress among caregivers.
We analyzed data from the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS V2, 2018). Informal/family caregivers were identified in HINTS V2 if they indicated they were caring for or making healthcare decisions for another adult with a health problem. We used the PROMIS® instrumental support four-item short-form T-scores and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) for distress. We examined multivariable linear regression models for associations between distress and instrumental support, adjusted for sampling weights, socio-demographics, and caregiving variables (care recipient health condition(s), years caregiving (≥2), relationship to care recipient, and caregiver burden). We examined interactions between burden and instrumental support on caregiver distress level.
Our analyses included 311 caregivers (64.8% female, 64.9% non-Hispanic White). The unweighted mean instrumental support T-score was 50.4 (SD = 10.6, range = 29.3-63.3); weighted mean was 51.2 (SE = 1.00). Lower instrumental support (p < 0.01), younger caregiver age (p < 0.04), higher caregiving duration (p = 0.008), and caregiver unemployment (p = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher caregiver distress. Mean instrumental support scores by distress levels were 52.3 (within normal limits), 49.4 (mild), 48.9 (moderate), and 39.7 (severe). The association between instrumental support and distress did not differ by caregiver burden level.
Poor instrumental support is associated with high distress among caregivers, suggesting the need for palliative and supportive care interventions to help caregivers leverage instrumental support.
将姑息治疗和支持性护理作为优先重点,有助于为4350万照顾重症患者的照护者提供帮助。缺乏支持可能导致照护者出现困扰,并对重症患者的护理质量产生不利影响。我们研究了工具性支持(在物质和任务执行方面提供的帮助)缓解照护者困扰的潜力。
我们分析了具有全国代表性的健康信息国家趋势调查(HINTS V2,2018)的数据。如果在HINTS V2中表明自己正在照顾患有健康问题的另一位成年人或为其做出医疗保健决策,则被确定为非正式/家庭照护者。我们使用了PROMIS®工具性支持四项简表T分数和患者健康问卷(PHQ-4)来评估困扰程度。我们研究了多变量线性回归模型,以分析困扰与工具性支持之间的关联,并对抽样权重、社会人口统计学和照护变量(受照护者的健康状况、照护年限(≥2年)、与受照护者的关系以及照护者负担)进行了调整。我们研究了负担与工具性支持之间的相互作用对照护者困扰水平的影响。
我们的分析纳入了311名照护者(女性占64.8%,非西班牙裔白人占64.9%)。未加权的工具性支持平均T分数为50.4(标准差=10.6,范围=29.3-63.3);加权平均值为51.2(标准误=1.00)。较低的工具性支持水平(p<0.01)、较年轻的照护者年龄(p<0.04)、较长的照护时长(p=0.008)以及照护者失业(p=0.006)与较高的照护者困扰显著相关。按困扰程度划分的工具性支持平均分数分别为52.3(在正常范围内)、49.4(轻度)、48.9(中度)和39.7(重度)。工具性支持与困扰之间的关联在不同照护者负担水平下没有差异。
较差的工具性支持与照护者的高困扰相关,这表明需要开展姑息治疗和支持性护理干预措施,以帮助照护者利用工具性支持。