ReviewTools for measuring the impact of informal caregiving of the elderly: A literature review
Introduction
In a context of rapidly growing frail elderly population, informal caregiver's role is becoming an important issue at a political, sociological and economic level. One of the reasons is that informal caregiving has a positive cost-efficacy balance. For example, a US study in 2009 (data from 2007) showed that the cost of caregiving by an informal caregiver could save $ 257 billion yearly for government or institutions (National Alliance for Caregiving, 2009). Massachusetts’ data from 2007 (Albelda et al., 2009) described that residents from this US state perform 24.9 million hours a day of unpaid care work (the equivalent of 3.1 million full-time workers, for a total population of 6.4 million (annual estimates for the population of Massachusetts; Mass.gov, 2010).
Besides economical reasons, the health of caregivers and their elderly care-receivers is a major concern. Indeed, there is not only evidence of the positive impact of caregiving on the health of caregivers and care-receivers (i.e. quality of relationships, feelings of accomplishment and meaning of the caregivers’ role; Carbonneau et al., 2010, Farfan-Portet et al., 2007), but also evidence of a negative impact on their health.
Firstly, caregiving may provoke caregivers suffering and ill-health. This consequence on health has been mainly studied for caregivers of patients with dementia, stroke and cancer (Goldstein et al., 2004, Schneider et al., 2002, Visser-Meily et al., 2004). This negative impact of caregiving reflects at several levels (Powers et al., 2002): when caregivers stay without assistance and help they are more likely to show stress symptoms (Joling et al., 2008). Caregiving might also alter physical health (Rose-Rego et al., 1998, Schulz et al., 2009), increase anxiety, social isolation (Sherwood et al., 2005), alter interpersonal relationships (Bodnar and Kiecolt-Glaser, 1994), provoke lesser well-being (Rose-Rego et al., 1998, Tessler and Gamache, 1995), lead to depressive symptoms (Sherwood et al., 2005), and even premature death (Schulz et al., 2009, van Exel et al., 2004).
Secondly, the negative impact of caregiving can contribute to elder abuse (Service Public Fédéral Santé Publique, 2004), as caregivers become too stressed by the burden and the inadequacy of the help they received for themselves.
Thirdly, the negative impact that the caregiver perceives may play a determinant role in the decision to institutionalize the elderly (Bedard et al., 2000, Pearlin et al., 1990).
Since the 1980s, there has been a growing interest in documenting the caregiving experience, as shown by the variety of instruments intended to measure caregiver variables. Among those, the psychological, emotional and physical stress related to the caregiving experience, as well as caregivers’ needs related to performing their caregiving tasks has been widely investigated. These instruments tend to measure the caregiver burden, needs and quality of life. An overview of validated instruments described in scientific literature can be useful for the researcher or the clinician wishing to investigate the impact of caregiving on the informal caregiver.
The main objective of this article was to identify available tools to assess the impact of home-dwelling elderly people's care on informal caregivers. This research took place during a larger study, in which the impact of innovative interventions had to be assessed through several outcomes (i.e. delaying institutionalization, maintaining or improving the functional status and perceived quality of life of the elderly, impact on the main informal caregiver and cost evaluation). In this context, innovative interventions were interventions that were not reimbursed by the compulsory Belgian health care insurance, NIHDI (National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance). These interventions were mainly nursing night care, coordination of care, speech therapy, occupational therapy and psychosocial support at home. The aim of the innovative interventions was to maintain frail elderly at home. One of the measured outcomes was the impact of a given intervention on the main informal caregiver. To measure that impact, we aimed to identify a validated tool that is easy to use (short) and extensively studied, to allow (inter)national comparisons on effectiveness of interventions targeting informal caregivers’ health. As part of that objective, we wanted also to clarify the meaning of the concept of “main informal caregiver”, by analyzing the description provided by the articles found during the literature review that would be performed for identifying the scale.
Section snippets
Methods
In order to fulfill our objectives of making an inventory of validated tools, finding an appropriate one for our study purposes and, eventually, find a definition of ‘main informal caregiver’, we performed a literature review in spring 2010.
Description of available tools to assess the impact of informal caregiving of home-dwelling elderly
As a result of the literature review, we found 105 validated scales meeting the search criteria. They are summarized in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4.
Among the themes presented in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, we chose to present the number of items of the scale (which provides an idea of the duration of the interview required for the assessment). The number of questions rated from 1 (self-rated burden scale, van Exel et al., 2004) to 200 (Family Experiences Interview Schedule, Tessler and Gamache,
Discussion
This paper aimed to (1) provide an overview of available scales measuring the impact of caregiving on elderly's caregivers and (2) identify in the literature, a validated, user-friendly and well-studied scale for assessing the impact of care for the main caregiver through an extensive literature research. By doing so, we were confronted by the need to clarify the meaning of the concept of ‘informal caregiver’ (Table 6).
The present literature review provides an extensive overview of the used
Study limits
As described in Section 2, only originally designed scales were included in this article. The references included in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 described only the original scale and the population in which it was validated, omitting the further validation processes the scale underwent in different populations, settings, or the sometimes more concise forms (‘short-forms’) and more in-depth validations, according to most recent validation standards. In our view, this can be easily addressed
Conclusion and implication for future research
Our literature review identified a large number of scales that can be used to assess the impact of interventions aiming at improving elderly people's caregivers’ health. Despite a lack of accurate definitions of concepts and study population, this inventory of scales should be a useful tool for intervention studies and even clinicians work.
Researchers might be helped by the availability of updated databases, listing validated scales according to their outcome measures. In addition, research
References (149)
- et al.
The generalizability of Caregiver Strain Index in family caregivers of cancer patients
International Journal of Nursing Studies
(2002) - et al.
Social support and caregiving circumstances as predictors of caregiver burden in Taiwan
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
(2009) - et al.
Caregiver's burden of patients 3 years after stroke assessed by a novel caregiver burden scale
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
(1996) - et al.
Problems in caring for the elderly mentally infirm at home
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
(1982) - et al.
Development of a brief assessment scale for caregivers of the medically ill
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
(2005) - et al.
Health and social consequences for relatives of demented and non-demented elderly. A population-based study
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
(1992) - et al.
Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interviews were valid in advanced conditions
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
(2010) - et al.
The perceived family burden scale: measurement and validation
Schizophrenia Research
(1996) - et al.
Life worth living for caregiving and caregiver burden among Japanese caregivers of the disabled elderly in Japan
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
(2009) - et al.