You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Burden prediction in cancer caregivers: role of social support and connectedness
  1. Eva YN Yuen1,2,3,
  2. Carlene Wilson4,5,6,
  3. Patricia M Livingston7,
  4. Victoria M White8,
  5. Vicki McLeod9 and
  6. Alison M Hutchinson1,10,11
  1. 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Burwood, VIC, Australia
  3. 3 Centre for Quality and Patient Safety - Monash Health Partnership, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  4. 4 School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Psycho-Oncology Research Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6 Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  7. 7 Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  8. 8 School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  9. 9 Oncology Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  10. 10 Centre for Quality and Patient Safety—Barwon Health Partnership, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  11. 11 Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Eva YN Yuen, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia; e.yuen{at}deakin.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives Caregivers play a key role in providing support to people with cancer. However, caregiving can be stressful and demanding, resulting in perceived caregiver burden. Social connectedness is considered partially independent from social support, yet few studies have examined whether social connectedness impacts caregiver burden. The current study sought to examine: (a) associations among social support, social connectedness and burden in a sample of cancer caregivers and (b) the mediating effect of social connectedness on the relationship between social support and caregiver burden.

Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. Data were collected as part of a larger project. The sample included 125 caregiver-cancer care recipient dyads. Caregivers completed the Social Connectedness Scale-Revised, the Medical Outcomes Study–Social Support Survey and the Zarit Burden Interview. Descriptive statistics, hierarchical multiple regression and mediation analyses were used to examine relationships between variables.

Results Correlation analyses showed higher perceived social support and social connectedness were significantly correlated with lower-reported caregiver burden (p<0.05). The hierarchical regression model showed that both social support and social connectedness were independent predictors of caregiver burden (p<0.001). Social connectedness partially mediated the relationship between social support and caregiver burden.

Conclusions This study provides new evidence that social support buffers the negative effects of burden in caregivers, suggesting these are potentially modifiable factors of caregiver burden. Increased understanding of the factors that contribute to burden among cancer caregivers will inform targeted supportive care strategies to improve psychological health and well-being in this underserved group.

  • cancer
  • quality of life
  • supportive care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2022-004070

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Presented at Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood VIC 3125.

    • Contributors EY, CW and AH conceived the idea and oversaw the study planning and design. PML, VMW and VM contributed to the study design. EY and VM oversaw data collection. EY conducted data analysis, interpretation and manuscript development. CW, AH, PML and VMW provided input into interpretation of the findings. All authors provided feedback on the manuscript. EY is the guarantor for the manuscript.

    • Funding This project was funded by a Deakin University Executive Dean Health Research Fellowship.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.