4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Hidden morbidity in cancer: Spouse caregivers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 30, 页码 4829-4834

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0909

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study assesses psychological distress among advanced cancer patients and their spouse caregivers, while examining the relative contribution of caregiving burden and relational variables (attachment orientation and marital satisfaction) to depressive symptoms in the spouse caregivers. Methods A total of 101 patients with advanced GI or lung cancer and their spouse caregivers were recruited for the study. Measures included Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Caregiving Burden scale, Experiences in Close Relationships scale, and ENRICH Marital Satisfaction scale. Results A total of 38.9% of the caregivers reported significant symptoms of depression (BDI-II >= 15) compared with 23.0% of their ill spouses (P < .0001). In a hierarchical regression predicting caregiver's depression, spouse caregiver's age and patient's cancer site were entered in the first step, objective caregiving burden was entered in the second step, subjective caregiving burden was entered in the third step, caregiver's attachment scores were entered in the fourth step, and caregiver's marital satisfaction score was entered in the fifth step. The final model accounted for 37% of the variance of caregiver depression, with subjective caregiving burden (beta = .38; P < .01), caregiver's anxious attachment (beta = .21; P < .05), caregiver's avoidant attachment (beta =.20; P < .05), and caregiver's marital satisfaction (beta = <. 18; P < .05) making significant contributions to the model. Conclusion Spouse caregivers of patients with advanced cancer are a high-risk population for depression. Subjective caregiving burden and relational variables, such as caregivers' attachment orientations and marital dissatisfaction, are important predictors of caregiver depression.

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

4.7
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