4.4 Review

The Impact of Spina Bifida on Caregivers

期刊

NEUROLOGY AND THERAPY
卷 1, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40120-012-0004-8

关键词

Burden; Caregivers; Caring; Myelomeningocele; Neural tube defects; Spina bifida

资金

  1. Bayer Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Neural tube defects (NTDs) are the second most common birth defects. Spina bifida (SB) and anencephaly make up approximately 90% of total NTDs. Given the number of infants born with an NTD each year, anyone who provides unpaid care for the child (especially caregivers) is affected. This literature review explores the humanistic burden on caregivers of people with SB, specifically myelomeningocele. Methods: A search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase was performed to find studies from 1976 to 2010. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was performed on qualitative data and relevant extracts from the data were collated to form master themes. Results: A total of 168 abstracts met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 25 articles related to caregivers of individuals with SB. Four master themes emerged: initial diagnosis, living with an individual with SB, social support, and coping. Different aspects of caregivers' lives were found to be affected by caring for a child with SB, including activities of daily living, work impact, time consumption, parental responsibilities, confidence, feelings and emotions, mental health, stress, social impact, psychological adjustment, and relationships. Conclusion: NTDs, such as SB, present a multitude of issues to caregivers. Issues that affect caregivers of individuals with SB must be addressed in order to reduce the considerable burden that SB places on the caregiver. Continued and enhanced support from health services and patient advocacy groups is needed. For example, providing additional information, support, and empathy can help parents prepare themselves for dealing with the needs of a child with SB over their lifetime.

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

4.4
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