4.0 Article

Psychological and Physical Health in Family Caregivers of Intensive Care Unit Survivors : Current Knowledge and Future Research Strategies

Journal

JOURNAL OF KOREAN ACADEMY OF NURSING
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 159-167

Publisher

KOREAN SOC NURSING SCIENCE
DOI: 10.4040/jkan.2016.46.2.159

Keywords

Intensive care unit; Caregivers; Family

Categories

Funding

  1. NINR NIH HHS [T32 NR008857] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This article provides an overview of current knowledge on the impact of caregiving on the psychological and physical health of family caregivers of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and suggestions for future research. Methods: Review of selected papers published in English between January 2000 and October 2015 reporting psychological and physical health outcomes in family caregivers of ICU survivors. Results: In family caregivers of ICU survivors followed up to five years after patients' discharge from an ICU, psychological symptoms, manifested as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, were highly prevalent. Poor self-care, sleep disturbances and fatigue were identified as common physical health problems in family caregivers. Studies to date are mainly descriptive; few interventions have targeted family caregivers. Further, studies that elicit unique needs of families from diverse cultures are lacking. Conclusion: Studies to date have described the impact of caregiving on the psychological and physical health in family caregivers of ICU survivors. Few studies have tested interventions to support unique needs in this population. Therefore, evidence for best strategies is lacking. Future research is needed to identify ICU caregivers at greatest risk for distress, time points to target interventions with maximal efficacy, needs of those from diverse cultures and test interventions to mitigate family caregivers' burden.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available