1 / 28

Overarching Aims

Caregivers of Advanced Cancer Patients: Geographic Proximity & Bereavement Adjustment John Cagle, PhD CPHAR Postdoctoral Fellow, UNC Institute on Aging Hartford Doctoral Fellow. Overarching Aims. To better understand how cancer caregiving impacts bereavement adjustment

wesley-bates
Download Presentation

Overarching Aims

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Caregivers of Advanced Cancer Patients: Geographic Proximity & Bereavement AdjustmentJohn Cagle, PhDCPHAR Postdoctoral Fellow, UNC Institute on AgingHartford Doctoral Fellow

  2. Overarching Aims • To better understand how cancer caregiving impacts bereavement adjustment • To better understand how cancer caregiver proximity affects caregiving and bereavement

  3. Cancer Overview • 1.4 million new cancer cases (ACS, 2008) • More than half a million cancer-related deaths (ACS, 2008) • 2nd leading cause of death (CDC, 2008)

  4. Hospice Care • Holistic and patient/family-centered care • Interdisciplinary support • Typically home-based • Hospice Admission Criteria: - Prognosis of 6 months or less - Must forego curative treatments

  5. Hospice: Current Trends • 4,100 hospices in the United States (NHPCO, 2007) • Serve more than a million patientsannually (NHPCO, 2007) • Patient population: • 46% cancer • 12% heart disease • 9% dementia • 7% lung disease

  6. Informal vs. Formal Caregivers • Networks of care: • Paid professionals • Family members • Friends • Neighbors

  7. Cancer Caregiving • Downside: • Burden (Ferrario, 2004; Given et al., 2004) • Lower quality of life (McMillan et al., 2002) • Greater relationship strain (Kissane et al., 1994) • Decreased sense of mastery (Moody, Lowery & Tarandi cited in McMillan, 2005) • Diminished mental and physical health (Haley et al., 2001; Nijober et al., 2000) • Increased risk of mortality (Schulz & Beach,1999)

  8. Cancer Caregiving • Upside • Fulfilling a personal obligation and reciprocity • Ensuring adequate care for the loved one • Time spent together • Feelings of personal growth • Sense of accomplishment • Increased knowledge and preparedness • Increased self-efficacy • Strengthened relationships • Increased empathy Sources: Aranda & Milne, 2000; Brown & Stetz, 1999; Nijober et al., 1999; Salmon, 2005; Stein et al., 1997

  9. Stress & Coping Models • Caregiver Stress & Bereavement Models • Relief hypothesis • Depletion hypothesis Sources: Ferrario, 2005; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Schulz et al., 2001

  10. Long Distance Caregivers • Between 5 million and 7 million in the US (MetLife, 2004; Wagner, 1997) • Projected to double over the next 15 years (NCOA, 2006) • Little known about the needs and experiences of this group

  11. Study Design QUESTIONNAIRE #1 Administered within one week of admission into hospice service QUESTIONNAIRE #2 Administered approximately 3 months after patient’s death Patient Death GROUP 1 Long Distance Caregivers GROUP 1 Long Distance Caregivers GROUP 2 Proximate Caregivers GROUP 2 Proximate Caregivers GROUP 3 Co-Residing Caregivers GROUP 3 Co-Residing Caregivers

  12. Catchment Area

  13. Measures • Depression Anxiety Stress Scale - 21 • WHO’s Well-Being Scale • Herth Hope Index • Lubben Social Network Scale (6 item version) • Texas Revised Inventory of Grief - Part 2 • Quality of Dying - Hospice

  14. Sample Characteristics • Caregiver Respondents (N = 106) • Gender • Female - 68% (n = 69) • Male - 32% (n = 33) • Race/Ethnicity* • Caucasian - 80% (n = 82) • African-American -10% (n = 10) • Native-American - 6% (n = 6) • Bi-racial/Multi-racial - 2% (n = 2) *Highest frequencies are reported; totals may not add up to 100%

  15. Sample Characteristics • Geographic Proximity • Co-residing 50.9% (n = 54) • Proximate 25.5% (n = 27) • Long distance 23.6% (n = 25) • Relationship to Patient: “The patient is my…”* • Parent 33% (n = 32), • Partner or spouse 31% (n = 30) • Sibling14% (n = 14) *Highest frequencies are reported; totals may not add up to 100%

  16. Patient Demographics (N = 104) • Age 76 years (SD = 14.3) • Located at Home (n = 96, 92%) • Moderate functioning and low levels of pain • Gender • Male - 53% • Female - 47% • Length of Stay of 55 days (SD = 50)

  17. Response Rates • 50% for the caregiver (pre-death) survey • 80% for the bereavement (post-death) survey

  18. Care and Geographic Proximity • Hours of care provided (p < .001) • 81 hours by co-residing (SD = 65) • 26 hours by proximate (SD = 21) • 41 hours by long distance (SD = 41) • Share of care, in retrospect (p < .001) • Co-residing took on a greater share, followed by proximate caregivers, and long distance caregivers. • Co-residing caregivers reported lower self-rated health (p = .038).

  19. Proximity and Satisfaction • Long distance caregivers were less satisfied with: • The availability of hospice (p = .004). • Hospice care in general (p = .042).

  20. Caregiving and Post-Death Depression • Caregivers who assumed a greater share of the care responsibilities reported higher levels of depressive symptoms during bereavement (ρ = .34, p = .041). • Positive correlation between on hours of care and depression scores post-death (r = .39, p = .020).

  21. Hope and Bereavement • For combined caregiver groups, levels of hope and optimism were significantly (p = .042) lower after the death.

  22. Quality of Dying • Quality of Dying had a positive relationship with length of stay in hospice (r = .53, p < .01) • Quality of Dying had a negative relationship with emotional grief (r = -.55, p < .01)

  23. Limitations • Non-representative sample • Nested groups • No controls for type of relationship to patient • Small sample size

  24. Qualitative Data • Prompt: “Please use the space below to make any additional comments about how you could have been better prepared/supported during the care of your loved one.”

  25. Qualitative Results • During Care (Pre-Death): • Preparedness/Preparation • Expressions of Gratitude • Disappointment/Criticism of Care • Role of Friends • Needs • Sacrifices • Information and Education • Faith and Spirituality • Sense of Obligation/Giving Back

  26. Qualitative Results • During Bereavement (Post-Death): • Information and Education • Faith and Spirituality • Expressions of Gratitude • Grief and Loss

  27. What Now? • Supplemental data analysis of 30 additional post-death surveys • Further validation of the Quality of Dying – Hospice • Explore predictive factors that contribute to complicated bereavement

  28. Thank You!Dissertation Chair: Pam Kovacs, PhDJohn A. Hartford Foundation Virginia Commonwealth University Florida State University

More Related