4.6 Article

Factors associated with quality of life among family caregivers of terminally ill cancer patients

Journal

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 217-224

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.3904

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Mundipharma Korea Grant of the Korean Society for Hospice and Palliative Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveLimited research has examined the quality of life (QOL) and its correlates among family caregivers (FCs) during the final stage of terminal cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the determinants of overall QOL and its subdomains among Korean FCs at the very end of life. MethodsFor this cross-sectional study, we enrolled 299 FCs of terminal cancer patients from seven palliative care units. To assess FCs' QOL and its predictors, we used the Caregiver Quality Of Life Index-Cancer, which contains four domains. Possible determinants of caregiver QOL were categorized into patient, caregiver, and environmental factors. A multiple regression model was used to identify factors associated with FCs' QOL. ResultsVariance in each Caregiver Quality Of Life Index-Cancer domain was explained by different factors. FCs of younger patient felt more burden but were more likely to adapt positively. Emotional distress of FCs was strongly associated with total QOL, burdensomeness, and disruptiveness. Positive adaptation was related to more visits for care, FCs' religiousness, more social support, and satisfactory perceived quality of care. Financial concerns were more likely in married FCs, FCs with less social support, or low incomes. ConclusionEmotional distress of FCs was the most important factor determining the overall and negative aspects of FCs' QOL, whereas various environmental factors were associated with positive coping. Appropriate support programs directed at these factors are needed to maintain and improve FCs' QOL. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available