Predictors of perceived caregiver strain in carers of patients living with heart failure: data from a collectivist society

Abstract

Abstract Background Informal caregivers are individuals voluntarily caring for someone facing a disease, disability, or any condition requiring particular attention.1 They provide around 90% of in-home care and play a key role in supporting the wellbeing and care of people living with chronic illnesses.2 Such diagnoses alter roles within the family unit and cause feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, depression, resentment, among others. This is true in caregivers of patients living with Heart Failure [HF]. High care dependency and lack of formal support for caregiving have increased the prevalence of caregiver strain. Purpose To describe caregiver strain and identify its determinants among caregivers of patients living with HF. Methods This was a cross-sectional correlational study. Caregivers were assessed for caregiver strain (Modified Caregiver Strain Index [MCSI]), social support (Carers of Older People in Europe Index [COPE]), and quality of life (QOL; Short Form 12). MCSI scores were compared across dyadic variables and then used as the outcome variables to create the regression model. Results 108 patients (age 63.54 ± 10.52 years, 70.4% males, 81.55% married) and caregivers (age 49.37 ± 13.69 years, 14.8% males, 82.2% married) were included. More than 80% of the dyads lived in the same household. Caregivers have been assuming this role for an average of 8.53 years and a mean of 37.73 hours per week. Almost 50% of the caregivers reported providing minimal care for their patient while 35% reported providing full care. An alarming 67.6% of the dyads were considered discordant and did not agree on how and by who the care is performed. Caregiver strain was average in this sample with a mean of 11.32 ± 6.94. Caregivers who provided full care had significantly higher caregiver strain (13.75 ± 6.16 versus 9.82 ± 7.16; F (2,76) = 3.329, p = 0.041). Poor caregiver perceived quality of the dyad was significantly associated with higher caregiver strain (16.07 ± 6 versus 10.71 ± 6.9; p < 0.001). Caregivers of symptomatic patients had lower caregiver strain than caregivers of asymptomatic patients (9.90 ± 7.43 versus 12.69 ± 6.21; p = 0.019). Being stressed in caregiving was significantly associated with higher caregiver strain (r = 0.774; p < 0.001). Having lower physical and/or mental QOL were associated with higher strain (r = -0.291 and -0.536 respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, a higher negative impact from caregiving, a lower mental and physical QOL, and a lower relationship quality explained about 63% of the variance in Caregiver Strain (F = 44.001; p < 0.001). Conclusion Knowledge from this study will help place caregivers’ health at the core of caregiving processes. HF nurses and physicians should start giving special attention to caregivers of HF patients who show signs if high caregiver strain. Interventions to reduce strain should be designed to address caregivers’ appraisal of dyad relationship quality, instrumental social support, and QOL.