IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307930.html

Care-related quality of life of informal caregivers of stroke survivors: Cross-sectional analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Lorena Villa-García
  • Mercè Salvat-Plana
  • John Slof
  • Natalia Pérez de la Ossa
  • Sònia Abilleira
  • Marc Ribó
  • Verónica Hidalgo-Benítez
  • Marco Inzitari
  • Aida Ribera

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to describe the intensity of care and its consequences on informal caregivers of stroke survivors according to the degree of care receivers’ functional dependence for activities of daily living; and to identify the factors associated with caregivers’ care-related quality of life. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of prospective data collected in a cost-utility study alongside the RACECAT trial in Catalonia (Spain). One-hundred and thirty-two care receiver-caregiver pairs were interviewed six months after stroke. Functional dependence for activities of daily living was measured with the Barthel index. We assessed caregivers care-related quality of life with the CarerQoL, which measures seven dimensions of subjective burden (CarerQoL-7D) and a happiness score (CarerQoL-VAS). We evaluated the association between characteristics of informal caregivers, characteristics of care receivers, and intensity of care, and the caregiver’s care-related quality of life (subjective burden and happiness) in a hypothesized model using a structural equation model. Results: Of the 132 caregivers, 74,2% were women with an average age of 59.4 ± 12.5 years. The 56.8% of them were spouses. The care intensity ranged from a mean of 24h/week for mild to 40h/week for severe dependence. Most caregivers (76.3%) were satisfied with their task, regardless of dependence, but showed increasing problems in caring for severely dependent persons. Being a woman (coeff. -0.23; 95%CI: -0.40, -0.07), spending more time in care tasks (coeff -0.37; -0.53, -0.21) and care receiver need of constant supervision (coeff 0.31; -0.47, -0.14) were associated with higher burden of care, irrespective of the degree of dependence. Caregiver burden (coeff 0.46; 0.30–0.61) and care receiver anxiety or depression (coeff -0.19; -0.34, -0.03) were associated with lower caregiver happiness. Conclusions: The findings suggest the importance of developing mainly two types of support interventions for caregivers: respite and psychosocial support. Especially for women with high caring burden and/or caring for persons with high levels of anxiety or depression.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorena Villa-García & Mercè Salvat-Plana & John Slof & Natalia Pérez de la Ossa & Sònia Abilleira & Marc Ribó & Verónica Hidalgo-Benítez & Marco Inzitari & Aida Ribera, 2024. "Care-related quality of life of informal caregivers of stroke survivors: Cross-sectional analysis of a randomized clinical trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307930
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307930
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307930&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307930?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0171186 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Eline E. Vos & Henk B. M. Hilderink & Simone R. de Bruin & Allard J. van der Beek & Karin I. Proper, 2022. "The Working Informal Caregiver Model: A Mixed Methods Approach to Explore Future Informal Caregiving by Working Caregivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    2. Cunwei Yang & Weiqing Wang & Fengying Li & Degang Yang, 2022. "A Sustainable, Interactive Elderly Healthcare System for Nursing Homes: An Interdisciplinary Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    4. Meregaglia, Michela & Manfredi, Simone & Perobelli, Eleonora & Rotolo, Andrea & Donati, Elisabetta & Notarnicola, Elisabetta, 2025. "Caregiver preferences and willingness-to-pay for home care services for older people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment in the Milan metropolitan area," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. Clare C. Brown & J. Mick Tilford & Nalin Payakachat & D. Keith Williams & Karen A. Kuhlthau & Jeffrey M. Pyne & Renske J. Hoefman & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Measuring Health Spillover Effects in Caregivers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 609-620, April.
    6. Nishit Dhanji & Werner Brouwer & Cam Donaldson & Eve Wittenberg & Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2021. "Estimating an exchange‐rate between care‐related and health‐related quality of life outcomes for economic evaluation: An application of the wellbeing valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2847-2857, November.
    7. Melanie Brinkmann & Maike Stolz & Annika Herr & Christoph Herrmann-Lingen & Imke Koch & Christiane Müller & Frank Müller & Uta Sekanina & Jona Theodor Stahmeyer & Martina de Zwaan & Christian Krauth &, 2024. "Care for post-COVID-19 condition in Germany from the perspectives of patients, informal caregivers and general practitioners: Study protocol for a mixed methods study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-13, December.
    8. McCaffrey, Nikki & Engel, Lidia & Karnon, Benjamin & Ratcliffe, Julie & Hoefman, Renske & Rand, Stacey & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Currow, David & Frith, Madison & Hutchinson, Claire, 2026. "A scoping review of preference-based instruments for measuring carer outcomes in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 390(C).
    9. Saif Elayan & Viola Angelini & Erik Buskens & Alice Boer, 2024. "The Economic Costs of Informal Care: Estimates from a National Cross-Sectional Survey in The Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1311-1331, November.
    10. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "The Monetary Value of Informal Care: Obtaining Pure Time Valuations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 531-540, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307930. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.