4.1 Article

Burden and Depression in Caregivers of Blind Patients in New York State

Journal

OPHTHALMIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 162-170

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2015.1099684

Keywords

American population; blind patients; care burden; depression; US population

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the degree of burden of care and the proportion at risk of depression among individuals caring for legally blind patients. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of 486 individuals providing care to their family members who were legally blind. Best-corrected visual acuity of the better-seeing eye in patients determined group placement: Group 1, 20/200-10/200; group 2, 10/200 to light perception (LP); group 3, no light perception (NLP); group VF, visual field loss to <20 central degrees. Burden was evaluated using the Burden Index of Caregivers (BIC-11) and the prevalence at risk of depression was determined by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. Results: Total mean BIC-11 scores ranged from 8.78 +/- 4.82 (group 1) to 12.03 +/- 5.22 (group 3; p = 0.04). Daily hours spent on close supervision, intensity of caregiving and presence of multiple chronic illnesses in caregivers were the significant covariates affecting BIC-11 scores (p < 0.05). The prevalence of caregivers at risk of depression increased with vision loss from 6.9% (group 1) to 17.9% (group 3; p < 0.05). Female caregivers had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.89 for depression (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.07-3.97; p = 0.04). Caregivers with >= 2 comorbidities had OR 4.24 (95% CI 2.41-6.11) for risk of depression (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Burden of care was highest among caregivers who provided greater hours of supervision. Patients with more limitations in their activities of daily living had caregivers who reported higher burden. Female caregivers and caregivers with multiple chronic illnesses were at higher risk of depression.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available