4.2 Article

Predictors of depression and anxiety among caregivers of hospitalised advanced cancer patients

期刊

SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 11, 页码 572-577

出版社

SINGAPORE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2018066

关键词

anxiety; cancer; caregiver; cognitive flexibility; depression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION Cancer is a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment and care. Caregivers of cancer patients are at greater risk of developing depression than the general population. The effect of caregivers' cognitive flexibility on depression and anxiety has not been well studied. We aimed to investigate the social characteristics, burden levels and cognitive flexibility of caregivers of advanced cancer patients, and determine the relationship between these factors and depression and anxiety. We hypothesised that factors such as cognitive flexibility and caregiver burden level significantly predict anxiety and depression. METHODS The study included 69 primary informal caregivers of patients with Stage 4 cancer. Methods utilised included diagnostic semi-structured interviews, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Zarit Caregiver Burden Inventory and cognitive flexibility inventory. RESULTS BDI scores were found to be significantly higher in caregivers who cared for men compared to those who cared for women (20.44 +/- 2.06 vs. 13.29 +/- 1.81; t = 2.60; p = 0.01). BDI mean scores were statistically lower in caregivers who received help with caregiving compared to those who did not (t = 2.62; p = 0.01). Cognitive flexibility level, burden level and lack of social support were found to be predictors of caregiver depression. CONCLUSION The study showed that individuals with low cognitive flexibility levels are more likely to have depressive and anxiety symptoms. Based on our findings, we opine that evaluations of caregivers' cognitive strategies and social support are needed to determine the risk of depression in caregivers of cancer patients.

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

4.2
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