4.3 Article

Factors Affecting Caregiver Burden 1 Year After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Prospective Nationwide Multicenter Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEAD TRAUMA REHABILITATION
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 411-423

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000085

Keywords

caregiver burden; GOS-E; social network; traumatic brain injury

Funding

  1. North Norwegian Health Authorities [8744/SFP1108-13]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess burden in the caregivers of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 1 year postinjury, related to caregiver's demographic data and social network, patient's demographic data, injury severity, and functional status. Design: Prospective national multicenter study. Self-report from caregivers, patient data collected from the national cohort on patients with severe TBI. Participants: 92 caregivers. Main outcome measure: The Caregiver Burden Scale (CBS). Results: Total caregiver burden was reported high in 16% of caregivers and moderate in 34%. The mean total burden index was 2.12, indicating a moderate burden. Caregivers reported highest scores on the General strain index, followed by the Disappointment index. Poor social network, feeling loneliness, and caring for patients with severe disability were significant predictors of higher burden in univariate analyses (P <.01). Multiple linear regression analyses showed that experiencing loneliness and caring for a patient with more severe disability were independent predictors for higher caregiver burden for all CBS indices. Marital status (married) and low frequency of meeting friends were significant results in some indices. Conclusions: Lack of a social network, feeling loneliness, and patient's functional status are predictors of caregiver burden. General strain, disappointment, and isolation were identified as areas in which caregiver burden is high.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available