Thursday, 21 August 2003
This presentation is part of : The Impact of Caregiving Across Different Dementia Diagnosis: Differences and Similarities

S085-001 Measurement of Care Burden on Family Caregiver: Using a New Assessment for Burden on Caregiver (ABC-16)

Norihiko Iida, Social Psychology, Kansai University, Suita, Japan, Noriyuki Kohashi, Tekijyu Rehabilitation Hospital, Kobe, Japan, Takehiko Okamura, Shin-Abuyama Hospital, Takatsuki, Japan, Kiichiro Nagao, Neyagawa Sanatorium, Neyagawa, Japan, Jamshid Jamshidi, Neurosurgery, Yukokai Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan, and Yi-Wen Chen, Counseling room, Kansai University, Suita, Japan.

Objective: The aim of this study is to obtain the fundamental data of the care burden on the in-home family with giving care for patients mainly with physical rehabilitation and those chiefly with psychiatric rehabilitation using a new self-administered assessment for burden on caregiver (ABC-16) and the reliability and the validity of the ABC-16.

Design: The assessment for burden on caregiver (ABC-16) consisted of 16 items and is designed to cover 4 dimensions including caregiver's burden, burden on social life, financial burden, and burden on health.

Materials and Methods: The subjects were 51 family caregivers (male 16: female 35, mean age 63 years) who deal with the in-home care for chiefly patients with physical impairment, including palsy, aphasia, and dementia in the first survey (P- group) and 31 family caregivers (male 5: female 26, mean age 58 years) who deal with the in-home care for mainly patients with mental disorders, including schizophrenia, mental retardation, and dementia in the second survey (M-group). Factors which we surveyed were analyzed statistically.

Results:

1. Internal consistency and correlation coefficient among each domain: The internal consistency was a= 0.821 for P-group, and a= 0.918 for M-group. Each domain showed significant mutual correlation.

2. Frequency of 4 dimensions: Frequency of 4 dimensions ranged between 76.5% for financial burden in P-Group and 94.1% for burden on social life in P-group. There was no significant different frequency between in P-group and in M-group.

3. The mean and standard deviation (SD): The mean and standard deviation was 4.02 (2.24) in P-Group versus 4.53(2.61) in M-Group for caregiver's burden, 4.23(2.57) in P-Group versus 3.68(2.26) in M-group for burden on social life, 2.94(2.56) in P-Group versus 2.90 (2.63) in M-Group for financial burden, 3.49 (2.18) in P-Group versus 3.232.56 in M-Group for burden on health, and 14.98(7.52) in P-Group versus 14.13(8.52) in term of the total score, which were nearly similar between the two.

4. Correlation with other factors by a multi-regression analysis: The ABC-16 was correlated care during night and the QOL of caregivers both in P-Group (careduring Night : b=0.485, P=0.001, QOL of caregivers : b=0.254, P=0.034, R2=0.462) and in M-group(CareDuring Night : b=0.470, P=0.003, QOL of caregivers: b= 0.408, P=0.014, R2= 0.352 ).

Conclusion: It should be indicated that the care burden on in-home family caregivers has no distinct discrepancy between patients with physical rehabilitation and those with psychiatric rehabilitation using the ABC-16. The ABC-16, which we developed, is a very excellent tool for assessing the care burden.

Back to S085 The Impact of Caregiving Across Different Dementia Diagnosis: Differences and Similarities
Back to The Eleventh International Congress