Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community
Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate ass...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Betini, Raquel S. D. [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2018 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s). 2018 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC geriatrics - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; day:13 ; month:12 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR027584976 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR027584976 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230519193441.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 201007s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR027584976 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Betini, Raquel S. D. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s). 2018 | ||
520 | |a Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Carer |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Long-term care home |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Screener |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Home care |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a interRAI |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Hirdes, John P. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Gammage, Lisa |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Vansickle, Jennifer |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Poss, Jeff |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Heckman, George |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC geriatrics |d London : BioMed Central, 2001 |g 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. |w (DE-627)335488994 |w (DE-600)2059865-8 |x 1471-2318 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2018 |g number:1 |g day:13 |g month:12 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_375 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 18 |j 2018 |e 1 |b 13 |c 12 |
author_variant |
r s d b rsd rsdb j p h jp jph n c t nct l g lg j v jv j p jp g h gh |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:14712318:2018----::eeomnadaiainfsreebsdnnerisesettmauenomla |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
publishDate |
2018 |
allfields |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x doi (DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Betini, Raquel S. D. verfasserin aut Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hirdes, John P. aut Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy aut Gammage, Lisa aut Vansickle, Jennifer aut Poss, Jeff aut Heckman, George aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 13 12 |
spelling |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x doi (DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Betini, Raquel S. D. verfasserin aut Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hirdes, John P. aut Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy aut Gammage, Lisa aut Vansickle, Jennifer aut Poss, Jeff aut Heckman, George aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 13 12 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x doi (DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Betini, Raquel S. D. verfasserin aut Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hirdes, John P. aut Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy aut Gammage, Lisa aut Vansickle, Jennifer aut Poss, Jeff aut Heckman, George aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 13 12 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x doi (DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Betini, Raquel S. D. verfasserin aut Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hirdes, John P. aut Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy aut Gammage, Lisa aut Vansickle, Jennifer aut Poss, Jeff aut Heckman, George aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 13 12 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x doi (DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Betini, Raquel S. D. verfasserin aut Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hirdes, John P. aut Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy aut Gammage, Lisa aut Vansickle, Jennifer aut Poss, Jeff aut Heckman, George aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 13 12 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in BMC geriatrics 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC geriatrics 18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez. volume:18 year:2018 number:1 day:13 month:12 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Carer Long-term care home Screener Home care interRAI |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
BMC geriatrics |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Betini, Raquel S. D. @@aut@@ Hirdes, John P. @@aut@@ Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy @@aut@@ Gammage, Lisa @@aut@@ Vansickle, Jennifer @@aut@@ Poss, Jeff @@aut@@ Heckman, George @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-12-13T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
335488994 |
id |
SPR027584976 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027584976</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519193441.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027584976</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Betini, Raquel S. D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Long-term care home</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Screener</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Home care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interRAI</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hirdes, John P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gammage, Lisa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vansickle, Jennifer</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poss, Jeff</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Heckman, George</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC geriatrics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335488994</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059865-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2318</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Betini, Raquel S. D. |
spellingShingle |
Betini, Raquel S. D. misc Carer misc Long-term care home misc Screener misc Home care misc interRAI Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
authorStr |
Betini, Raquel S. D. |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)335488994 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1471-2318 |
topic_title |
Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community Carer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Long-term care home (dpeaa)DE-He213 Screener (dpeaa)DE-He213 Home care (dpeaa)DE-He213 interRAI (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Carer misc Long-term care home misc Screener misc Home care misc interRAI |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Carer misc Long-term care home misc Screener misc Home care misc interRAI |
topic_browse |
misc Carer misc Long-term care home misc Screener misc Home care misc interRAI |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC geriatrics |
hierarchy_parent_id |
335488994 |
hierarchy_top_title |
BMC geriatrics |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 |
title |
Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR027584976 (SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e |
title_full |
Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
author_sort |
Betini, Raquel S. D. |
journal |
BMC geriatrics |
journalStr |
BMC geriatrics |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2018 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Betini, Raquel S. D. Hirdes, John P. Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy Gammage, Lisa Vansickle, Jennifer Poss, Jeff Heckman, George |
container_volume |
18 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Betini, Raquel S. D. |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |
title_sort |
development and validation of a screener based on interrai assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
title_auth |
Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
abstract |
Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. © The Author(s). 2018 |
abstractGer |
Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. © The Author(s). 2018 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions. © The Author(s). 2018 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Hirdes, John P. Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy Gammage, Lisa Vansickle, Jennifer Poss, Jeff Heckman, George |
author2Str |
Hirdes, John P. Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy Gammage, Lisa Vansickle, Jennifer Poss, Jeff Heckman, George |
ppnlink |
335488994 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x |
up_date |
2024-07-03T13:47:24.370Z |
_version_ |
1803565866022862848 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027584976</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519193441.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027584976</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12877-018-0986-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Betini, Raquel S. D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. Methods In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. Results The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four ‘wellbeing’ levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32–9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. Conclusion The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Long-term care home</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Screener</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Home care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interRAI</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hirdes, John P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Curtin-Telegdi, Nancy</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gammage, Lisa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vansickle, Jennifer</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poss, Jeff</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Heckman, George</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC geriatrics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2018), 1 vom: 13. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335488994</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059865-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2318</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0986-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.4010086 |