Category Archives: BMC Public Health

Survey nonresponse among informal caregivers: effects on the presence and magnitude of associations with caregiver burden and satisfaction.

BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):480

Authors: Oldenkamp M, Wittek RP, Hagedoorn M, Stolk RP, Smidt N

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal caregiving is becoming more relevant with current trends such as population ageing. However, little is known about nonconsent and nonresponse bias in caregiving research. We investigated nonconsent and nonresponse bias in a sample of informal caregivers who participated in the LifeLines Cohort Study, and were invited for participation in an additional caregiving study.
METHODS: We compared socio-demographic characteristics, caregiver health, caregiving situation, and caregiver outcomes of nonconsent and consent caregivers, and nonresponse and response caregivers, on LifeLines data, by using Chi-square tests, Independent Sample T-tests, and Mann-Whitney tests. Furthermore, we examined the influence of nonconsent and nonresponse on the presence and magnitude of the associations between caregiver characteristics and two commonly used caregiving outcomes (caregiver burden and satisfaction). We conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses, including interaction terms with nonconsent and nonresponse.
RESULTS: Within a subcohort of 8443 caregivers, aged >18 years, 5095 caregivers (60 %) gave consent for participation in the caregiving study. Within the subgroup of 2002 caregivers who received the questionnaire, 965 (48 %) responded. Caregivers who were highly involved in caregiving (i.e. high time investment, high caregiver burden), gave more commonly consent to participate, and responded more often to the questionnaire. Nonconsent and nonresponse influenced the associations between caregiver characteristics and caregiver burden for only a few characteristics, mainly indicating the level of caregiving involvement (e.g. time investment, caregiving duration). Especially for caregiver burden, these indicators were stronger for consent and response caregivers than for nonconsent and nonresponse caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are important for caregiving research, as they emphasized that participation might not be evenly distributed among caregivers, and that the possibility of nonconsent and nonresponse bias should be considered.

PMID: 27278386 [PubMed – in process]

Continue reading →

A web-based self-help intervention for partners of cancer patients based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: a protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):303

Authors: Köhle N, Drossaert CH, Schreurs KM, Hagedoorn M, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Bohlmeijer ET

Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing recognition that cancer not only affects the lives of the patients, but also the lives of their partners. Partners of cancer patients are highly involved in the illness trajectory by providing informal care and they often experience distress. However, supporting interventions for this group are scarce and existing interventions bear several limitations. On the basis of the need for theory- and evidence-based supportive interventions for partners of cancer patients, the web-based self-help intervention Hold on, for each other has been developed. This intervention is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. The primary objective of the RCT is to investigate the (cost-) effectiveness of the intervention. Additional goals are (1) to examine if psychological flexibility, self-compassion, mastery, supportive behavior, posttraumatic growth and resilience are mediators of the intervention’s effects on the partners’ mental health; (2) to examine the moderating effects of the socio demographics (age, gender, education, working situation, family situation) and disease-related characteristics of the patients (sort of cancer, stage of disease, duration and treatment of cancer); and (3) to investigate to what extend participants are satisfied with the intervention, which parts of the intervention are mostly used, and how adherent the users are.
METHODS/DESIGN: A three-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted to compare two versions of the intervention Hold on, for each other with a waiting list control condition. Both intervention conditions contain the same content and differ only with regard to the form of professional support (personal support versus automatic support). Adult partners of cancer patients with mild to moderate depressive and anxiety symptoms, will be recruited through a multi-component strategy. Online measurements by self-assessment will be made on four measurement points (prior to randomization (baseline-measurement) and 3, 6 and 12 months after baseline).
DISCUSSION: When proven effective, Hold on, for each other can be an invaluable contribution to the healthcare system and it could be offered to all partners of cancer patients who are in need for additional support.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, trial registration number NTR4035 , date of registration: 17 March 2013.

PMID: 25884187 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Continue reading →