4.5 Article

Factors associated with caregiver burden: comparative study between Brazilian and Spanish caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 1363-1374

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610216000508

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; family caregivers; burden; neuropsychiatric symptoms; Day Care Center; transcultural studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transcultural studies regarding the comparison of levels of burden in caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) from Europe and Latin America are rare. We designed this study to investigate the differentiating factors associated with burden in Brazilian and Spanish caregivers of patients with AD. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study composed by samples of outpatients with AD and their caregivers from Brazil (n = 128) and Spain (n = 146). Caregivers answered the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and a Sociodemographic Questionnaire. Patients were assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. Results: In the multivariate regression analysis, high burden levels were reported in Brazil, when caregivers were female (p = 0.025) and when patients did not attend Day Care Center (p = 0.025). In Spain, high burden levels were associated with living with the patient (p = 0.014), younger caregivers (p = 0.003), and participation of patients at Day Care Center (p = 0.046). Also, different neuropsychiatric symptoms explained high burden levels: in Brazil, depression (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.024) and, in Spain, apathy/ indifference (p < 0.001), agitation/aggression (p = 0.019) and irritability/lability (p = 0.027). Conclusions: Caregivers' gender, patients who attended Day Care Center and neuropsychiatric symptoms were differentiating factors in the burden of Brazilian and Spanish caregivers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据