517547 research-article2014
JAGXXX10.1177/0733464813517547Journal of Applied GerontologyStewart et al.
Article
Rural Caregivers for a Family Member With Dementia: Models of Burden and Distress Differ for Women and Men
Journal of Applied Gerontology 1–29 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464813517547 jag.sagepub.com
Norma J. Stewart1, Debra G. Morgan1, Chandima P. Karunanayake1, Joseph P. Wickenhauser1, Allison Cammer1, Duane Minish1, Megan E. O’Connell1, and Leslie A. Hayduk2
Abstract Forecasts of increasing prevalence of dementia in rural settings, coupled with reliance on family caregiver support, indicate that a greater understanding of caregiver distress in these contexts is necessary. The purpose of this study was to examine family caregiver burden and severity of distress on the day that a family member was diagnosed with dementia at a memory clinic that serves a rural population. Participants in this retrospective study were 231 primary family caregivers of a rural community-dwelling person with dementia. On the diagnostic day, women reported more burden and severity of distress than men and spouses reported more severity of distress than adult children. A structural equation model was not supported for the entire sample, but was supported for women caregivers only (n = 161). Caregiver distress related Manuscript received: November 22, 2012; final revision received: July 18, 2013; November 9, 2013; accepted: November 24, 2013. 1University 2University
of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Corresponding Author: Norma J. Stewart, College of Nursing, 104 Clinic Place, HSc E Wing 4th Floor, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
2
Journal of Applied Gerontology
to dementia-specific behaviors explained both global distress and burden. Patients’ functional decline was related to caregiver burden. Keywords caregiving, dementia, gender, rural and remote health care
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Alzheimer’s Disease International (2012), the current global prevalence of dementia is expected to double by 2030 and almost triple by 2050. The potential family and economic burden of this trend calls for proactive policies to address the needs of community-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers. In Canada, the 2011 census revealed a higher rate of growth of seniors aged 65 and above in the previous 5 years, compared with younger age groups. The proportion of seniors was highest (17.2%) outside of communities with a population of 10,000 or more, which includes rural, small town, and remote areas (Statistics Canada, 2012). Along with a shift from institutional to community care, this pattern is evident on an international scale (WHO & Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2012) and highlights the pressing need for more understanding and support of family caregivers in rural and remote areas. Despite the considerable research that has been conducted on challenges for family dementia caregivers (see reviews by Etters, Goodall, & Harrison, 2007; Yap, Seow, Henderson, & Goh, 2005), there are gaps in our knowledge of caregiver distress in rural communities (reviews by Goins, Spencer, & Byrd, 2009; Innes, Morgan, & Kosteniuk, 2011). To date, the majority of family caregiver studies have been conducted in urban settings. The purpose of this retrospective study was twofold. First, we examined differences in rural family caregiver burden and severity of distress related to caregiver gender (male vs. female) and relationship (spouse vs. adult child) to the family member with dementia. Second, we developed a causal model of caregiver burden and severity of distress, based on data collected on the day of diagnosis. This research was conducted at a memory clinic located in an urban center that exclusively serves rural populations in a western Canadian province.
Caregiving and Gender Since women have historically been socialized to assume caregiving roles (Brewer, 2001), it is not surprising that the emphasis in the literature has been on women as caregivers (Brody, 1990). Nevertheless, there has been
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
3
Stewart et al.
an increased interest in men as caregivers in recent years (Baker & Robertson, 2008; Harris & Bichler, 1997). More generally, gender has implications for caregivers (e.g., Bédard et al., 2005). In this study, we define gender as “socially constructed relationships between women and men, among women, and among men” that develop through the process of social interactions (Gerson & Peiss, 1985, p. 317). Gender roles are subject to a variety of geographical (Little & Panelli, 2003), historical, and cultural factors. In a study of women providing care for a family member with dementia, Neufeld and Harrison (2003) interpreted the caregivers’ perception of nonsupport and negative interactions from family and friends within symbolic interaction theory (Blumer, 1969), which posits that the self evolves through ongoing interaction with others. They note that the related identity theory (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995) provides a “useful lens” because it suggests that “individuals negotiate self-conceptions through their interactions and in the context of what is socially valued for each of the roles they assume” (Neufeld & Harrison, 2003, p. 329). Within the caregiver–care recipient relationship, meanings are constructed that emerge and evolve over time. For example, in a study of caregivers who have a spouse diagnosed with Alzheimer disease, Calasanti and Bowen (2006) found that while both husbands and wives cross traditional gender boundaries in their caregiving tasks, they tend to maintain the gender identity of their spouse, which implies recognition of the importance of masculinity and femininity to the personal identity of the care recipient. This study illustrates a reconstruction of caregiver gender roles, while caregiver effort is made to maintain the gender identity of the spouse with dementia to preserve their dignity. Research on subjective burden experienced in the care of a family member with dementia has generally revealed that women report more burden than men in similar situations (Bédard et al., 2005). Gender differences in perceptions of distress have been explained in a variety of ways, such as sex-role orientation (Wilken, Altergott, & Sandberg, 1996), coping styles (Lutzky & Knight, 1994), and care-recipient problem behaviors (Bédard et al., 2005). Kramer (1997) has suggested that there may be a difference in the way that men appraise strain and gain. In a study of gender differences in burden and depression (Gallicchio, Siddiqi, Langenberg, & Baumgarten, 2002), female caregivers of community-based elders with dementia reported more burden than their male counterparts, but there was no difference in the caregiver outcome of depression. Calasanti and King (2007) also suggest that men and women have gendered experiences of distress based on their repertoire of gendered ways of coping. A recent review article on male caregiving in dementia (McDonnell & Ryan, 2013) concluded that while there are
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
4
Journal of Applied Gerontology
similarities in the caregiver experience across gender, there is a need for more research on differences as a basis for the development of interventions specific to the gender of the caregiver.
Caregiver–Care Recipient Relationship The literature on caregiving has focused more on spousal (husband, wife) care relationships (Braun et al., 2009) than intergenerational relationships, such as adult children providing care for a mother or father with dementia and bearing the additional concern about a familial risk to themselves (Jarvik & Blazer, 2005). Given the fact that sons have been less likely to serve as dementia caregivers than daughters, much of the research on filial caregiving has related to daughters (e.g., Depp et al., 2005; Ward-Griffin, Oudshoorn, Clark, & Bol, 2007). In a comparison of the coping strategies of wives and daughter as caregivers (Wilcox, O’Sullivan, & King, 2001), there were similarities in psychological measures (burden, stress, depression, anger) but differences in coping strategies, with daughters more likely than mothers to use adaptive problem-focused coping and less likely to use maladaptive coping strategies of blaming others and self-blame. The latter strategies were correlated with “anger-in” and “anger-control,” measured by Spielberger’s Anger Expression Scale. Expression of emotion, particularly anger, has been related to physiological outcomes. In an urban longitudinal study of female and male caregivers of a spouse with Alzheimer disease, Shaw et al. (2003) concluded that caregiving stress and emotional expressivity contribute independently to the risk of hypertension. Barber and Pasley (1995) conceptualize predictors of strain in caregivers of a family member with Alzheimer disease in terms of time-variant factors (progressive dementia impairment) and time-invariant factors (caregiver gender and generational kinship). They argue that caregiver outcomes may differ if two time-invariant predictors are examined at the same time (e.g., gender and generational relationship). They studied the same four caregiving groups in the Midwest and western United States as we have in the present study in the Canadian prairies (i.e., wives caring for husbands, husbands caring for wives, daughters caring for parent[s], and sons caring for parent[s]). The theoretical potential with this approach is that our understanding of the impact on the caregiver is “sharpened by distinguishing caregiver gender, generational relationship [spousal vs. filial], and specific family kin relation [wife, husband, daughter, or son]” (Barber & Pasley, 1995, p. 189). They found that family strain, social restriction, and declining physical health varied according to the gender and generational relationship that the caregiver had with the care recipient.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
5
Stewart et al.
The specific role designation (e.g., wife, son) may be less important in relation to perceived distress than the quality of the relationship that has evolved (Quinn, Clare, & Woods, 2009) or the course of the dementia, particularly related to development of behavioral symptoms (Black & Almeida, 2004). The impact on the caregiver of the cognitive, behavioral, and personality changes in the person with dementia, includes a loss of intimate exchange and loss of relationship quality that increases the risk of depression in the caregiver (Adams, McClendon, & Smyth, 2008).
The Rural Context Caregiver distress may be related to accessibility of services in rural and remote areas, but research evidence has often focused more on urban settings than rural. Loos and Bowd (1997) studied the lived experience of 68 caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease living in rural and isolated regions of northern Canada and found that a unique sense of personal loss and grief was central to their caregiving experience. Spousal caregivers tended to interpret their loss of control over events with “resignation and duty,” whereas adult children caregivers were more likely to “express anger and bitterness” with their shrinking social world (Loos & Bowd, 1997, p. 511). The loss was compounded in rural areas by lack of social support services. By contrast, another Canadian study compared rural and urban informal caregivers for cognitively impaired older adults (Bédard, Koivuranta, & Stuckey, 2004) and found that, while rural caregivers had less access to formal services and were more likely to be nonspousal and employed, they did not differ from urban caregivers in reported burden or health status. Similarly, rural caregivers’ distress, burden, and coping did not differ based on caregivers’ geographic access to a major metropolitan center (O’Connell, Germaine, Burton, Stewart, & Morgan, 2013). A study of male caregivers of wives or mothers with dementia and another chronic condition in rural regions in the Midwest United States (Sanders, 2007) revealed a range of experiences from informal supports to social isolation. This study differentiated the caregivers’ perceptions of support from their willingness to ask for help. The author notes that the experience of caregiver isolation was exacerbated by the demographics of rural communities where young people leave for urban settings and older people in the potential support network may be in caregiving roles themselves. In a rural–urban comparison of African American caregivers and care recipients, Chadiha, Feld, and Rafferty (2011) found that there were fewer informal supports for caregiving (i.e., secondary caregivers) in rural contexts than in urban settings. By contrast, Byrd, Spencer, and Goins (2011) found no rural–urban differences in caregiver burden or depressive symptoms despite assumed Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
6
Journal of Applied Gerontology
fewer formal supports in rural settings. They interpreted these findings as an adaptation to lack of formal services by reliance on informal supports. Clearly, there is need for more research in rural contexts to examine burden within the specific contextual factors that determine the availability and use of informal supports by dementia caregivers. In a systematic review of research on the informal caregiving of family members with dementia living in rural and remote settings, Innes et al. (2011) found that there was “limited work examining the experiences of rural caregivers and their education and support needs” (p. 34). They concluded that most of the studies of rural family caregivers over the past two decades have been small and descriptive, rather than comparative, and that the understanding of caregiver needs in rural settings warrants further attention around the globe. Another review article that focused more broadly on rural caregiving of older adults (Goins et al., 2009) underscored the need to examine the impact of living in a rural setting on the family caregiving experience. As well as drawing attention to the limited understanding of “what is rural about rural caregiving,” they identified limitations in the existing research such as crosssectional rather than longitudinal designs, lack of operational definitions of variables, and absence of a theoretical orientation.
Theoretical Perspectives A theoretical underpinning of the concept of caregiver burden is the cognitive model of stress and coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), with burden defined as negative cognitive appraisal that is viewed as an antecedent of physical and mental health problems such as depression (O’Rourke & Tuokko, 2003). The concept of burden has usually been considered a unidimensional construct, as operationalized by the Zarit Burden (ZB) Interview (Schreiner, Morimoto, Arai, & Zarit, 2006). More recently, an alternative view has emerged that burden is a multidimensional construct. For example, Savundranayagam, Montgomery, and Kosloski (2011) found three dimensions of burden for spouses and adult child caregivers: stress (anxiety), relationship (caregiver–care recipient dyad), and objective burden (time taken in the caregiver role). Furthermore, they found that caregiver time to help the care recipient with activities of daily living was only related to objective burden; whereas, care recipients with problem behaviors were associated with all three types of caregiver burden and with the intent to institutionalize. In a critical review of research based on the stress and coping model, Kneebone and Martin (2003) concluded that while we know more about which coping styles are most effective (e.g., problem solving and acceptance),
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
7
Stewart et al.
the 12 cross-sectional and four longitudinal studies reviewed do not use measures of coping strategies that are specific to the types of problems that arise for the caregiver as dementia progresses. Another perspective on coping draws on notions of psychological resources such as self-efficacy, competence, or personal mastery. For example, Adams, Smyth, and McClendon (2005) compared spousal caregivers with non-caregivers and found that a sense of personal mastery had a greater protective effect on mediating depression in caregivers than in non-caregivers, demonstrating the benefits of interventions that enhance a sense of control over one’s life and environment. The day of diagnosis has been examined through qualitative research to build theory that is specific to the dementia experience. For example, Aminzadeh, Byszewski, Molnar, and Eisner (2007) developed a preliminary model of emotional reactions to the disclosure of a dementia diagnosis through the reports of the person diagnosed and their primary caregiver. As a theory-building strategy, they have used language consistent with other research conducted in the diagnostic phase and later as the disease progresses. The pre-diagnostic phase has been found to last from 1 to 3 years (Leung et al., 2011), which means that the caregivers have often been providing support for a considerable time before the diagnosis. In an Australian study that mapped out the personal and diagnostic events prior to the dementia diagnosis (Speechly, Bridges-Webb, & Passmore, 2008), the average “firm diagnosis” was 3.1 years after the first symptoms were noticed and a year after the person needed help with daily activities. Prior to diagnosis, families have often had a substantial amount of time living with the cognitive and behavioral aspects of dementia and uncertainty related to the cause of these symptoms, leading to perceptions of burden and distress when they arrive on the diagnosis day.
The Present Study On the basis of literature from urban-based studies, we predicted that rural women would report more caregiver burden and severity of distress than rural men on the day of diagnosis (measured prior to the communication of the diagnosis to the family). Based on our univariate results and clinical experience, we further hypothesized a multivariate causal model of determinants of burden and severity of distress, controlling for the immediate pre-diagnosis stress which was constant over the entire sample. We examined the predicted gender effect by testing the model for the full sample, with gender of caregiver as an exogenous variable, and further testing by separating women from men caregivers. The exogenous variables in the model were as follows: severity of dementia-related behavior domains (agitation/aggression, apathy/
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
8
Journal of Applied Gerontology
indifference, disinhibition, psychotic symptoms, and sleep/nighttime behavior disorders), caregiver relationship (spouse vs. adult child caregivers), and functional assessment. Endogenous variables were caregiver distress linked to each of the five behavior domains.
Method As part of the research program associated with the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic (RRMC), we conducted a two-phase analysis to improve our understanding of distress in rural family caregivers. First, we compared the four caregiver groups (wives, husbands, daughters, sons) on caregiver burden and severity of distress. Then we developed a causal model for these effects and tested it using structural equation modeling (SEM). Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board.
Participants All patients who were referred to the RRMC with their families (2004-2012, the clinic’s sixth data release) were eligible for inclusion. From a possible 363 caregivers, 231 family caregivers were selected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) family relationship to the care recipient (spouse or adult child); (b) care recipient with diagnosis, based on interdisciplinary information, of mild cognitive impairment or dementia at the end of the initial in-person visit to the RRMC; (c) primary caregiver as designated by the family member who signed the informed consent to complete the family caregiver questionnaire; and (d) rural residence of care recipient, defined as living more than 100 km from major cities with tertiary care centers in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The primary caregiver sample included 86 wives, 75 daughters, 47 husbands, and 23 sons, who provided family dementia care in rural settings. For this analysis, we excluded data from caregivers with less commonly reported relationships, such as other relatives, friends, and unmarried partners.
Instruments Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). The CDR (Morris, 1993) is a standardized clinician-based rating scale focusing on impairments in memory with secondary foci on rated impairments in instrumental and basic activities of daily living. CDR scores of 0 are consistent with no cognitive impairment, 0.5 is typical for pre-clinical or mild cognitive impairment, and scores of 1.0 are typical for persons with dementia. Higher scores (up to 3) represent more
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
9
Stewart et al.
impairment. In the present study, a registered psychologist coded the CDR through an assessment of six areas of functioning: memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care. These domains are referred to as “boxes” in the CDR. Summing the box scores of the CDR (CDR-SOB) provided a more detailed quantitative measure of global dementia severity, which is more sensitive than the traditional CDR at detecting changes in dementia severity over time. CDR-SOB scores range from 0 to 18, with larger scores suggesting severe impairment in all of the 6 domains assessed by the CDR. Criterion validity has been established for the individual domains and the global CDR (Morris, 1997). Although the CDR was developed for Alzheimer disease, the CDR-SOB score provides a global indicator of care needs over severity of dementia and has had neuropathological validation for the presence or absence of dementia (Morris, 1997). Zarit Burden (ZB) Scale. The self-identified primary caregiver completed a family caregiver questionnaire, which included the short version (Bédard et al., 2001) of the ZB Scale (Zarit, Orr, & Zarit, 1985), at each clinic day over the three time intervals (diagnosis, 1-year follow-up, 2-year follow-up). This 12-item summated Likert-type scale had 5 response options (never, rarely, sometimes, quite frequently, nearly always) that were scored from 0 to 4. Items include a range of feelings related to taking care of the family member with dementia. The summation gives a total burden score from 0 to 48, with higher values representing increased burden. Although the ZB was originally used as an interview, we have used it here in the format of a self-report questionnaire, which was completed by the caregiver at the clinic. O’Rourke and Tuokko (2003) have provided psychometric support for the equivalency of the short version of the ZB versus the long version. Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). This self-report scale (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) was also embedded in the family caregiver questionnaire that primary caregivers completed at each of the three time intervals (initial visit and two annual follow-up visits). The BSI is a 53-item summated Likert-type scale with 5 response options (not at all, a little bit, moderately, quite a bit, extremely) that are scored from 0 to 4. The BSI has 9 subscales that measure symptom dimensions: depression, anxiety, hostility, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, obsessive-compulsive, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The measure used in this study was the Global Severity Index (GSI), which was the sum of all responses divided by the number of items completed. Derogatis and Melisaratos (1983) provide evidence of good reliability (test–retest and internal consistency) and validity (convergent and construct) of this
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
10
Journal of Applied Gerontology
instrument and they recommend the GSI in relation to other BSI scoring methods as the “single best indicator of current distress levels” (p. 597). Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). The NPI was developed to identify the presence of psychopathology in patients with brain disorders. It includes 12 domains of behavior known to occur in different types of dementia. The original NPI included 10 behavior content domains: delusions, hallucinations, dysphoria, anxiety, agitation/aggression, euphoria, disinhibition, irritability/ lability, apathy, and aberrant motor activity (Cummings et al., 1994). Later, two additional behavior domains were added: nighttime sleep disturbances, and changes in appetite and eating behavior (Cummings, 1997). Content validity was established through a Delphi panel of national and international experts. Evaluation of concurrent validity was only possible with behavior domains that were part of other scales; some of the NPI domains (e.g., apathy and disinhibition) did not appear on other scales. The NPI was designed to be used in a structured interview with a caregiver. Each domain is rated on a 5-point scale for severity (1 = mild; 5 = severe) and associated caregiver distress (0 = not distressing at all; 5 = extremely distressing). Interrater reliability based on two raters, who observed and scored the same interviews, was high (89.4%-100% agreement) across 10 behavior domains (Cummings et al., 1994). Correlation conducted for test–retest reliability (3 week interval) were more variable in magnitude (r = .51-.98 for frequency; r = .51-.87 for severity of caregiver distress). However, the low scores were for behaviors that are known to be intermittent (e.g., agitation/aggression, anxiety, and irritability/lability). For the present analysis, we selected six of the behavior domains for inclusion in our model building: agitation/aggression, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, sleep and nighttime behavior, delusions, and hallucinations. Based on the judgment of the clinical research team, these behaviors were considered to be most relevant to our sample, given the range of diagnoses and the different behavior profiles associated with different types of dementia. Since Cummings et al. (1994) found a low base rate of delusions and hallucinations, we collapsed these behaviors into a single item that we called “psychotic symptoms.” Cummings (1997) found that the NPI profile varied between patients with Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal dementia (e.g., the latter had more apathy and disinhibition). The NPI was completed as part of the baseline family caregiver questionnaire that was completed by all primary caregivers in our sample on the morning of the diagnosis day. Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). The primary family caregiver completed the 10-item FAQ as part of the family caregiver questionnaire. Pfeffer,
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
11
Stewart et al.
Kurosaki, Harrah, Chance, and Filos (1982) developed this measure of social function for community-dwelling older adults. The caregiver rates each of the 10 items from 0 (normal) to 3 (dependent) and the summated scores range from 0 to 30. The cutpoint of 9 (dependent in 3 or more activities) indicates impaired function and possible cognitive impairment. Concurrent validity of the FAQ was determined by comparison with multiple indicators of function including the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL) and neurologist ratings of residual function. The sensitivity of the FAQ in discriminating between people with dementia and normal individuals was higher (.85) than the IADL (.57), while the specificity of the FAQ was slightly lower (.81) than the IADL (.92). Interrater reliability was high between neurologists (r = .97) and between a neurologist and nurse (r = .80).
Procedure The RRMC is a weekly diagnostic clinic for patients referred from rural or remote areas (Morgan et al, 2009). A pre-clinic assessment is done by telehealth and blood work is completed at that time so that the results are available by clinic day. Patients come to the clinic in a tertiary care center, accompanied by their family member(s), and spend a full day in assessments. In the morning, the interdisciplinary team interviews the patient and family. Then the patient has neuropsychological testing done (approximately 2 hr). During this time, the family member completes scales related to themselves (ZB, BSI) and ratings of the patient’s functional and behavioral status. At some time during the day, the patient has a neurological examination, a physical therapy examination, and a CT brain scan. At the end of the day, the patients and family members meet with the neurologist and neuropsychologist who provide the diagnosis and plan for management. Follow-up is done by telehealth (videoconferencing) from the tertiary center to the closest community that has telehealth available (Morgan et al, 2011).
Statistical Analysis The initial univariate phase of analysis used a factorial design with a 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two factors were caregiver gender (women or men) and caregiver relationship (spouse or adult child) to the care recipient who was diagnosed with dementia. Separate ANOVAs were conducted for each of the two outcomes: burden (ZB) and severity of distress (BSI). In the second phase of analysis, a multivariate model was developed to improve our understanding of rural caregiver burden and severity of distress, based on the clinical experience of the research team and the literature. SEM
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
12
Journal of Applied Gerontology
was used (Hayduk, 1987) and the model was tested using LISREL 9.1 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2013). The prediction was that goodness-of-fit statistics would support the model, as evident from a nonsignificant maximum likelihood ratio χ2 when the covariances from the data were compared to the covariances implied by the estimates from the model as conceptualized. Concepts of interest that were measured on the diagnosis day, but not related to the outcomes (hence, not in the model) were as follows: rurality, use of services in the past 12 months, frequency of contact between caregiver and care recipient, severity of dementia (CDR), and gender of care recipient. The first two variables were excluded a priori, based on our previous research (O’Connell et al, 2013) and the low base rate of service use evident in frequency data. The latter three variables were part of the model using all the data, but were excluded based on a lack of relationship to the outcomes. We planned to examine the overall model, with gender as an exogenous variable, and then test the model separately for each gender.
Results The characteristics of the care recipients in this analysis are outlined in Table 1. Of note is the large range of ages and the diverse types of dementia, which can be explained by the fact that the memory clinic tends to have referrals for cases that are difficult to diagnose. There was no overall difference in severity of dementia across caregiver groups at the outset of the study based on the CDR scale; F(3, 212) = 0.82, p = .49; η2 = .011. Although the families entered the study at different times over an 8-year period, the care needs at baseline (day of diagnosis) were similar within each of the four subgroups of caregivers: wives, husbands, daughters, and sons. There was some missing data so this assessment was approximate. All measures were obtained within the same time frame on the diagnostic day. The means and standard deviations of burden and severity of distress across caregiver groups are found in Table 2. The factorial analysis is presented in Table 3. As predicted, there was a main effect for gender with both measures. As compared with men, women (wives + daughters) reported more caregiver burden, F(1, 221) = 14.33, p < .0001, and greater severity of distress, F(1, 212) = 16.47, p < .0001. In the comparison of type of relationship, there was no difference in reported caregiver burden (ZB), but spouses (husbands + wives) reported greater severity of distress (BSI) than children (sons + daughters), F(1, 193) = 6.14, p = .014. There were no significant interaction effects. Figure 1 illustrates the model for women only, which was supported by the LISREL analysis. The overall model did not have a good fit and there were
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
13
Stewart et al. Table 1. Characteristics of Care Recipients, 2004-2012 (n = 231). Characteristic Age, in years
JAGXXX10.1177/0733464813517547Journal of Applied GerontologyStewart et al.
Article
Rural Caregivers for a Family Member With Dementia: Models of Burden and Distress Differ for Women and Men
Journal of Applied Gerontology 1–29 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464813517547 jag.sagepub.com
Norma J. Stewart1, Debra G. Morgan1, Chandima P. Karunanayake1, Joseph P. Wickenhauser1, Allison Cammer1, Duane Minish1, Megan E. O’Connell1, and Leslie A. Hayduk2
Abstract Forecasts of increasing prevalence of dementia in rural settings, coupled with reliance on family caregiver support, indicate that a greater understanding of caregiver distress in these contexts is necessary. The purpose of this study was to examine family caregiver burden and severity of distress on the day that a family member was diagnosed with dementia at a memory clinic that serves a rural population. Participants in this retrospective study were 231 primary family caregivers of a rural community-dwelling person with dementia. On the diagnostic day, women reported more burden and severity of distress than men and spouses reported more severity of distress than adult children. A structural equation model was not supported for the entire sample, but was supported for women caregivers only (n = 161). Caregiver distress related Manuscript received: November 22, 2012; final revision received: July 18, 2013; November 9, 2013; accepted: November 24, 2013. 1University 2University
of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Corresponding Author: Norma J. Stewart, College of Nursing, 104 Clinic Place, HSc E Wing 4th Floor, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E5, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
2
Journal of Applied Gerontology
to dementia-specific behaviors explained both global distress and burden. Patients’ functional decline was related to caregiver burden. Keywords caregiving, dementia, gender, rural and remote health care
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Alzheimer’s Disease International (2012), the current global prevalence of dementia is expected to double by 2030 and almost triple by 2050. The potential family and economic burden of this trend calls for proactive policies to address the needs of community-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers. In Canada, the 2011 census revealed a higher rate of growth of seniors aged 65 and above in the previous 5 years, compared with younger age groups. The proportion of seniors was highest (17.2%) outside of communities with a population of 10,000 or more, which includes rural, small town, and remote areas (Statistics Canada, 2012). Along with a shift from institutional to community care, this pattern is evident on an international scale (WHO & Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2012) and highlights the pressing need for more understanding and support of family caregivers in rural and remote areas. Despite the considerable research that has been conducted on challenges for family dementia caregivers (see reviews by Etters, Goodall, & Harrison, 2007; Yap, Seow, Henderson, & Goh, 2005), there are gaps in our knowledge of caregiver distress in rural communities (reviews by Goins, Spencer, & Byrd, 2009; Innes, Morgan, & Kosteniuk, 2011). To date, the majority of family caregiver studies have been conducted in urban settings. The purpose of this retrospective study was twofold. First, we examined differences in rural family caregiver burden and severity of distress related to caregiver gender (male vs. female) and relationship (spouse vs. adult child) to the family member with dementia. Second, we developed a causal model of caregiver burden and severity of distress, based on data collected on the day of diagnosis. This research was conducted at a memory clinic located in an urban center that exclusively serves rural populations in a western Canadian province.
Caregiving and Gender Since women have historically been socialized to assume caregiving roles (Brewer, 2001), it is not surprising that the emphasis in the literature has been on women as caregivers (Brody, 1990). Nevertheless, there has been
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
3
Stewart et al.
an increased interest in men as caregivers in recent years (Baker & Robertson, 2008; Harris & Bichler, 1997). More generally, gender has implications for caregivers (e.g., Bédard et al., 2005). In this study, we define gender as “socially constructed relationships between women and men, among women, and among men” that develop through the process of social interactions (Gerson & Peiss, 1985, p. 317). Gender roles are subject to a variety of geographical (Little & Panelli, 2003), historical, and cultural factors. In a study of women providing care for a family member with dementia, Neufeld and Harrison (2003) interpreted the caregivers’ perception of nonsupport and negative interactions from family and friends within symbolic interaction theory (Blumer, 1969), which posits that the self evolves through ongoing interaction with others. They note that the related identity theory (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995) provides a “useful lens” because it suggests that “individuals negotiate self-conceptions through their interactions and in the context of what is socially valued for each of the roles they assume” (Neufeld & Harrison, 2003, p. 329). Within the caregiver–care recipient relationship, meanings are constructed that emerge and evolve over time. For example, in a study of caregivers who have a spouse diagnosed with Alzheimer disease, Calasanti and Bowen (2006) found that while both husbands and wives cross traditional gender boundaries in their caregiving tasks, they tend to maintain the gender identity of their spouse, which implies recognition of the importance of masculinity and femininity to the personal identity of the care recipient. This study illustrates a reconstruction of caregiver gender roles, while caregiver effort is made to maintain the gender identity of the spouse with dementia to preserve their dignity. Research on subjective burden experienced in the care of a family member with dementia has generally revealed that women report more burden than men in similar situations (Bédard et al., 2005). Gender differences in perceptions of distress have been explained in a variety of ways, such as sex-role orientation (Wilken, Altergott, & Sandberg, 1996), coping styles (Lutzky & Knight, 1994), and care-recipient problem behaviors (Bédard et al., 2005). Kramer (1997) has suggested that there may be a difference in the way that men appraise strain and gain. In a study of gender differences in burden and depression (Gallicchio, Siddiqi, Langenberg, & Baumgarten, 2002), female caregivers of community-based elders with dementia reported more burden than their male counterparts, but there was no difference in the caregiver outcome of depression. Calasanti and King (2007) also suggest that men and women have gendered experiences of distress based on their repertoire of gendered ways of coping. A recent review article on male caregiving in dementia (McDonnell & Ryan, 2013) concluded that while there are
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
4
Journal of Applied Gerontology
similarities in the caregiver experience across gender, there is a need for more research on differences as a basis for the development of interventions specific to the gender of the caregiver.
Caregiver–Care Recipient Relationship The literature on caregiving has focused more on spousal (husband, wife) care relationships (Braun et al., 2009) than intergenerational relationships, such as adult children providing care for a mother or father with dementia and bearing the additional concern about a familial risk to themselves (Jarvik & Blazer, 2005). Given the fact that sons have been less likely to serve as dementia caregivers than daughters, much of the research on filial caregiving has related to daughters (e.g., Depp et al., 2005; Ward-Griffin, Oudshoorn, Clark, & Bol, 2007). In a comparison of the coping strategies of wives and daughter as caregivers (Wilcox, O’Sullivan, & King, 2001), there were similarities in psychological measures (burden, stress, depression, anger) but differences in coping strategies, with daughters more likely than mothers to use adaptive problem-focused coping and less likely to use maladaptive coping strategies of blaming others and self-blame. The latter strategies were correlated with “anger-in” and “anger-control,” measured by Spielberger’s Anger Expression Scale. Expression of emotion, particularly anger, has been related to physiological outcomes. In an urban longitudinal study of female and male caregivers of a spouse with Alzheimer disease, Shaw et al. (2003) concluded that caregiving stress and emotional expressivity contribute independently to the risk of hypertension. Barber and Pasley (1995) conceptualize predictors of strain in caregivers of a family member with Alzheimer disease in terms of time-variant factors (progressive dementia impairment) and time-invariant factors (caregiver gender and generational kinship). They argue that caregiver outcomes may differ if two time-invariant predictors are examined at the same time (e.g., gender and generational relationship). They studied the same four caregiving groups in the Midwest and western United States as we have in the present study in the Canadian prairies (i.e., wives caring for husbands, husbands caring for wives, daughters caring for parent[s], and sons caring for parent[s]). The theoretical potential with this approach is that our understanding of the impact on the caregiver is “sharpened by distinguishing caregiver gender, generational relationship [spousal vs. filial], and specific family kin relation [wife, husband, daughter, or son]” (Barber & Pasley, 1995, p. 189). They found that family strain, social restriction, and declining physical health varied according to the gender and generational relationship that the caregiver had with the care recipient.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
5
Stewart et al.
The specific role designation (e.g., wife, son) may be less important in relation to perceived distress than the quality of the relationship that has evolved (Quinn, Clare, & Woods, 2009) or the course of the dementia, particularly related to development of behavioral symptoms (Black & Almeida, 2004). The impact on the caregiver of the cognitive, behavioral, and personality changes in the person with dementia, includes a loss of intimate exchange and loss of relationship quality that increases the risk of depression in the caregiver (Adams, McClendon, & Smyth, 2008).
The Rural Context Caregiver distress may be related to accessibility of services in rural and remote areas, but research evidence has often focused more on urban settings than rural. Loos and Bowd (1997) studied the lived experience of 68 caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease living in rural and isolated regions of northern Canada and found that a unique sense of personal loss and grief was central to their caregiving experience. Spousal caregivers tended to interpret their loss of control over events with “resignation and duty,” whereas adult children caregivers were more likely to “express anger and bitterness” with their shrinking social world (Loos & Bowd, 1997, p. 511). The loss was compounded in rural areas by lack of social support services. By contrast, another Canadian study compared rural and urban informal caregivers for cognitively impaired older adults (Bédard, Koivuranta, & Stuckey, 2004) and found that, while rural caregivers had less access to formal services and were more likely to be nonspousal and employed, they did not differ from urban caregivers in reported burden or health status. Similarly, rural caregivers’ distress, burden, and coping did not differ based on caregivers’ geographic access to a major metropolitan center (O’Connell, Germaine, Burton, Stewart, & Morgan, 2013). A study of male caregivers of wives or mothers with dementia and another chronic condition in rural regions in the Midwest United States (Sanders, 2007) revealed a range of experiences from informal supports to social isolation. This study differentiated the caregivers’ perceptions of support from their willingness to ask for help. The author notes that the experience of caregiver isolation was exacerbated by the demographics of rural communities where young people leave for urban settings and older people in the potential support network may be in caregiving roles themselves. In a rural–urban comparison of African American caregivers and care recipients, Chadiha, Feld, and Rafferty (2011) found that there were fewer informal supports for caregiving (i.e., secondary caregivers) in rural contexts than in urban settings. By contrast, Byrd, Spencer, and Goins (2011) found no rural–urban differences in caregiver burden or depressive symptoms despite assumed Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
6
Journal of Applied Gerontology
fewer formal supports in rural settings. They interpreted these findings as an adaptation to lack of formal services by reliance on informal supports. Clearly, there is need for more research in rural contexts to examine burden within the specific contextual factors that determine the availability and use of informal supports by dementia caregivers. In a systematic review of research on the informal caregiving of family members with dementia living in rural and remote settings, Innes et al. (2011) found that there was “limited work examining the experiences of rural caregivers and their education and support needs” (p. 34). They concluded that most of the studies of rural family caregivers over the past two decades have been small and descriptive, rather than comparative, and that the understanding of caregiver needs in rural settings warrants further attention around the globe. Another review article that focused more broadly on rural caregiving of older adults (Goins et al., 2009) underscored the need to examine the impact of living in a rural setting on the family caregiving experience. As well as drawing attention to the limited understanding of “what is rural about rural caregiving,” they identified limitations in the existing research such as crosssectional rather than longitudinal designs, lack of operational definitions of variables, and absence of a theoretical orientation.
Theoretical Perspectives A theoretical underpinning of the concept of caregiver burden is the cognitive model of stress and coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), with burden defined as negative cognitive appraisal that is viewed as an antecedent of physical and mental health problems such as depression (O’Rourke & Tuokko, 2003). The concept of burden has usually been considered a unidimensional construct, as operationalized by the Zarit Burden (ZB) Interview (Schreiner, Morimoto, Arai, & Zarit, 2006). More recently, an alternative view has emerged that burden is a multidimensional construct. For example, Savundranayagam, Montgomery, and Kosloski (2011) found three dimensions of burden for spouses and adult child caregivers: stress (anxiety), relationship (caregiver–care recipient dyad), and objective burden (time taken in the caregiver role). Furthermore, they found that caregiver time to help the care recipient with activities of daily living was only related to objective burden; whereas, care recipients with problem behaviors were associated with all three types of caregiver burden and with the intent to institutionalize. In a critical review of research based on the stress and coping model, Kneebone and Martin (2003) concluded that while we know more about which coping styles are most effective (e.g., problem solving and acceptance),
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
7
Stewart et al.
the 12 cross-sectional and four longitudinal studies reviewed do not use measures of coping strategies that are specific to the types of problems that arise for the caregiver as dementia progresses. Another perspective on coping draws on notions of psychological resources such as self-efficacy, competence, or personal mastery. For example, Adams, Smyth, and McClendon (2005) compared spousal caregivers with non-caregivers and found that a sense of personal mastery had a greater protective effect on mediating depression in caregivers than in non-caregivers, demonstrating the benefits of interventions that enhance a sense of control over one’s life and environment. The day of diagnosis has been examined through qualitative research to build theory that is specific to the dementia experience. For example, Aminzadeh, Byszewski, Molnar, and Eisner (2007) developed a preliminary model of emotional reactions to the disclosure of a dementia diagnosis through the reports of the person diagnosed and their primary caregiver. As a theory-building strategy, they have used language consistent with other research conducted in the diagnostic phase and later as the disease progresses. The pre-diagnostic phase has been found to last from 1 to 3 years (Leung et al., 2011), which means that the caregivers have often been providing support for a considerable time before the diagnosis. In an Australian study that mapped out the personal and diagnostic events prior to the dementia diagnosis (Speechly, Bridges-Webb, & Passmore, 2008), the average “firm diagnosis” was 3.1 years after the first symptoms were noticed and a year after the person needed help with daily activities. Prior to diagnosis, families have often had a substantial amount of time living with the cognitive and behavioral aspects of dementia and uncertainty related to the cause of these symptoms, leading to perceptions of burden and distress when they arrive on the diagnosis day.
The Present Study On the basis of literature from urban-based studies, we predicted that rural women would report more caregiver burden and severity of distress than rural men on the day of diagnosis (measured prior to the communication of the diagnosis to the family). Based on our univariate results and clinical experience, we further hypothesized a multivariate causal model of determinants of burden and severity of distress, controlling for the immediate pre-diagnosis stress which was constant over the entire sample. We examined the predicted gender effect by testing the model for the full sample, with gender of caregiver as an exogenous variable, and further testing by separating women from men caregivers. The exogenous variables in the model were as follows: severity of dementia-related behavior domains (agitation/aggression, apathy/
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
8
Journal of Applied Gerontology
indifference, disinhibition, psychotic symptoms, and sleep/nighttime behavior disorders), caregiver relationship (spouse vs. adult child caregivers), and functional assessment. Endogenous variables were caregiver distress linked to each of the five behavior domains.
Method As part of the research program associated with the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic (RRMC), we conducted a two-phase analysis to improve our understanding of distress in rural family caregivers. First, we compared the four caregiver groups (wives, husbands, daughters, sons) on caregiver burden and severity of distress. Then we developed a causal model for these effects and tested it using structural equation modeling (SEM). Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board.
Participants All patients who were referred to the RRMC with their families (2004-2012, the clinic’s sixth data release) were eligible for inclusion. From a possible 363 caregivers, 231 family caregivers were selected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) family relationship to the care recipient (spouse or adult child); (b) care recipient with diagnosis, based on interdisciplinary information, of mild cognitive impairment or dementia at the end of the initial in-person visit to the RRMC; (c) primary caregiver as designated by the family member who signed the informed consent to complete the family caregiver questionnaire; and (d) rural residence of care recipient, defined as living more than 100 km from major cities with tertiary care centers in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The primary caregiver sample included 86 wives, 75 daughters, 47 husbands, and 23 sons, who provided family dementia care in rural settings. For this analysis, we excluded data from caregivers with less commonly reported relationships, such as other relatives, friends, and unmarried partners.
Instruments Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). The CDR (Morris, 1993) is a standardized clinician-based rating scale focusing on impairments in memory with secondary foci on rated impairments in instrumental and basic activities of daily living. CDR scores of 0 are consistent with no cognitive impairment, 0.5 is typical for pre-clinical or mild cognitive impairment, and scores of 1.0 are typical for persons with dementia. Higher scores (up to 3) represent more
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
9
Stewart et al.
impairment. In the present study, a registered psychologist coded the CDR through an assessment of six areas of functioning: memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care. These domains are referred to as “boxes” in the CDR. Summing the box scores of the CDR (CDR-SOB) provided a more detailed quantitative measure of global dementia severity, which is more sensitive than the traditional CDR at detecting changes in dementia severity over time. CDR-SOB scores range from 0 to 18, with larger scores suggesting severe impairment in all of the 6 domains assessed by the CDR. Criterion validity has been established for the individual domains and the global CDR (Morris, 1997). Although the CDR was developed for Alzheimer disease, the CDR-SOB score provides a global indicator of care needs over severity of dementia and has had neuropathological validation for the presence or absence of dementia (Morris, 1997). Zarit Burden (ZB) Scale. The self-identified primary caregiver completed a family caregiver questionnaire, which included the short version (Bédard et al., 2001) of the ZB Scale (Zarit, Orr, & Zarit, 1985), at each clinic day over the three time intervals (diagnosis, 1-year follow-up, 2-year follow-up). This 12-item summated Likert-type scale had 5 response options (never, rarely, sometimes, quite frequently, nearly always) that were scored from 0 to 4. Items include a range of feelings related to taking care of the family member with dementia. The summation gives a total burden score from 0 to 48, with higher values representing increased burden. Although the ZB was originally used as an interview, we have used it here in the format of a self-report questionnaire, which was completed by the caregiver at the clinic. O’Rourke and Tuokko (2003) have provided psychometric support for the equivalency of the short version of the ZB versus the long version. Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). This self-report scale (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) was also embedded in the family caregiver questionnaire that primary caregivers completed at each of the three time intervals (initial visit and two annual follow-up visits). The BSI is a 53-item summated Likert-type scale with 5 response options (not at all, a little bit, moderately, quite a bit, extremely) that are scored from 0 to 4. The BSI has 9 subscales that measure symptom dimensions: depression, anxiety, hostility, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, obsessive-compulsive, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The measure used in this study was the Global Severity Index (GSI), which was the sum of all responses divided by the number of items completed. Derogatis and Melisaratos (1983) provide evidence of good reliability (test–retest and internal consistency) and validity (convergent and construct) of this
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
10
Journal of Applied Gerontology
instrument and they recommend the GSI in relation to other BSI scoring methods as the “single best indicator of current distress levels” (p. 597). Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). The NPI was developed to identify the presence of psychopathology in patients with brain disorders. It includes 12 domains of behavior known to occur in different types of dementia. The original NPI included 10 behavior content domains: delusions, hallucinations, dysphoria, anxiety, agitation/aggression, euphoria, disinhibition, irritability/ lability, apathy, and aberrant motor activity (Cummings et al., 1994). Later, two additional behavior domains were added: nighttime sleep disturbances, and changes in appetite and eating behavior (Cummings, 1997). Content validity was established through a Delphi panel of national and international experts. Evaluation of concurrent validity was only possible with behavior domains that were part of other scales; some of the NPI domains (e.g., apathy and disinhibition) did not appear on other scales. The NPI was designed to be used in a structured interview with a caregiver. Each domain is rated on a 5-point scale for severity (1 = mild; 5 = severe) and associated caregiver distress (0 = not distressing at all; 5 = extremely distressing). Interrater reliability based on two raters, who observed and scored the same interviews, was high (89.4%-100% agreement) across 10 behavior domains (Cummings et al., 1994). Correlation conducted for test–retest reliability (3 week interval) were more variable in magnitude (r = .51-.98 for frequency; r = .51-.87 for severity of caregiver distress). However, the low scores were for behaviors that are known to be intermittent (e.g., agitation/aggression, anxiety, and irritability/lability). For the present analysis, we selected six of the behavior domains for inclusion in our model building: agitation/aggression, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, sleep and nighttime behavior, delusions, and hallucinations. Based on the judgment of the clinical research team, these behaviors were considered to be most relevant to our sample, given the range of diagnoses and the different behavior profiles associated with different types of dementia. Since Cummings et al. (1994) found a low base rate of delusions and hallucinations, we collapsed these behaviors into a single item that we called “psychotic symptoms.” Cummings (1997) found that the NPI profile varied between patients with Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal dementia (e.g., the latter had more apathy and disinhibition). The NPI was completed as part of the baseline family caregiver questionnaire that was completed by all primary caregivers in our sample on the morning of the diagnosis day. Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). The primary family caregiver completed the 10-item FAQ as part of the family caregiver questionnaire. Pfeffer,
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
11
Stewart et al.
Kurosaki, Harrah, Chance, and Filos (1982) developed this measure of social function for community-dwelling older adults. The caregiver rates each of the 10 items from 0 (normal) to 3 (dependent) and the summated scores range from 0 to 30. The cutpoint of 9 (dependent in 3 or more activities) indicates impaired function and possible cognitive impairment. Concurrent validity of the FAQ was determined by comparison with multiple indicators of function including the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL) and neurologist ratings of residual function. The sensitivity of the FAQ in discriminating between people with dementia and normal individuals was higher (.85) than the IADL (.57), while the specificity of the FAQ was slightly lower (.81) than the IADL (.92). Interrater reliability was high between neurologists (r = .97) and between a neurologist and nurse (r = .80).
Procedure The RRMC is a weekly diagnostic clinic for patients referred from rural or remote areas (Morgan et al, 2009). A pre-clinic assessment is done by telehealth and blood work is completed at that time so that the results are available by clinic day. Patients come to the clinic in a tertiary care center, accompanied by their family member(s), and spend a full day in assessments. In the morning, the interdisciplinary team interviews the patient and family. Then the patient has neuropsychological testing done (approximately 2 hr). During this time, the family member completes scales related to themselves (ZB, BSI) and ratings of the patient’s functional and behavioral status. At some time during the day, the patient has a neurological examination, a physical therapy examination, and a CT brain scan. At the end of the day, the patients and family members meet with the neurologist and neuropsychologist who provide the diagnosis and plan for management. Follow-up is done by telehealth (videoconferencing) from the tertiary center to the closest community that has telehealth available (Morgan et al, 2011).
Statistical Analysis The initial univariate phase of analysis used a factorial design with a 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two factors were caregiver gender (women or men) and caregiver relationship (spouse or adult child) to the care recipient who was diagnosed with dementia. Separate ANOVAs were conducted for each of the two outcomes: burden (ZB) and severity of distress (BSI). In the second phase of analysis, a multivariate model was developed to improve our understanding of rural caregiver burden and severity of distress, based on the clinical experience of the research team and the literature. SEM
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
12
Journal of Applied Gerontology
was used (Hayduk, 1987) and the model was tested using LISREL 9.1 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2013). The prediction was that goodness-of-fit statistics would support the model, as evident from a nonsignificant maximum likelihood ratio χ2 when the covariances from the data were compared to the covariances implied by the estimates from the model as conceptualized. Concepts of interest that were measured on the diagnosis day, but not related to the outcomes (hence, not in the model) were as follows: rurality, use of services in the past 12 months, frequency of contact between caregiver and care recipient, severity of dementia (CDR), and gender of care recipient. The first two variables were excluded a priori, based on our previous research (O’Connell et al, 2013) and the low base rate of service use evident in frequency data. The latter three variables were part of the model using all the data, but were excluded based on a lack of relationship to the outcomes. We planned to examine the overall model, with gender as an exogenous variable, and then test the model separately for each gender.
Results The characteristics of the care recipients in this analysis are outlined in Table 1. Of note is the large range of ages and the diverse types of dementia, which can be explained by the fact that the memory clinic tends to have referrals for cases that are difficult to diagnose. There was no overall difference in severity of dementia across caregiver groups at the outset of the study based on the CDR scale; F(3, 212) = 0.82, p = .49; η2 = .011. Although the families entered the study at different times over an 8-year period, the care needs at baseline (day of diagnosis) were similar within each of the four subgroups of caregivers: wives, husbands, daughters, and sons. There was some missing data so this assessment was approximate. All measures were obtained within the same time frame on the diagnostic day. The means and standard deviations of burden and severity of distress across caregiver groups are found in Table 2. The factorial analysis is presented in Table 3. As predicted, there was a main effect for gender with both measures. As compared with men, women (wives + daughters) reported more caregiver burden, F(1, 221) = 14.33, p < .0001, and greater severity of distress, F(1, 212) = 16.47, p < .0001. In the comparison of type of relationship, there was no difference in reported caregiver burden (ZB), but spouses (husbands + wives) reported greater severity of distress (BSI) than children (sons + daughters), F(1, 193) = 6.14, p = .014. There were no significant interaction effects. Figure 1 illustrates the model for women only, which was supported by the LISREL analysis. The overall model did not have a good fit and there were
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 16, 2015
13
Stewart et al. Table 1. Characteristics of Care Recipients, 2004-2012 (n = 231). Characteristic Age, in years
