1999
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(199908)14:8<651::aid-gps992>3.3.co;2-2
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

EUROCARE: a cross‐national study of co‐resident spouse carers for people with Alzheimer's disease: I—factors associated with carer burden

Abstract: This study confirms the high level of burden and mental distress in spouse carers for people with Alzheimer's disease in the European Community. It suggests that there are elements of burden which may vary by country but also elements which have a common effect in all. These data suggest avenues for the primary and secondary prevention of burden by addressing clinical issues (e.g. behavioural disturbance); public attitudes and education (e.g. negative social reactions); economic support for carers (e.g. financ… Show more

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
41
31
26
2

Citation Types

11
89
2
8

Year Published

2001
2001
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
79
6
5
1

Relationship

0
91

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 91 publications

(110 citation statements)
references

References 0 publications

11
89
2
8
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Another novelty of our study is the knowledge gained about the care of PSP and CBS patients during initial phases of the disease. Interestingly, we did not find significant correlations between burden of care and patient age, caregiver age or caregiver occupational status, which is in contradiction to other reports in the literature (Tsai et al 2021;Schneider et al 1999;Iavarone et al 2014). The correlations between educational level of the patient and close patient-caregiver relationship (partner or first-degree relative) with CB also need to be verified in future studies.…”
Section: Discussion
contrasting
confidence: 99%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Another novelty of our study is the knowledge gained about the care of PSP and CBS patients during initial phases of the disease. Interestingly, we did not find significant correlations between burden of care and patient age, caregiver age or caregiver occupational status, which is in contradiction to other reports in the literature (Tsai et al 2021;Schneider et al 1999;Iavarone et al 2014). The correlations between educational level of the patient and close patient-caregiver relationship (partner or first-degree relative) with CB also need to be verified in future studies.…”
Section: Discussion
contrasting
confidence: 99%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Furthermore, we found that caregivers who had children were more likely to report increased health burden suggesting that this group is particularly vulnerable. Conversely, regarding financial burden, we observed that younger caregivers were at an increased risk of strain which is consistent with findings from other populations (Girgis et al., ; Kent et al., ; Schneider, Murray, Banerjee, & Mann, ). Also, while caregiver characteristics did not explain family support burden collectively, it should be noted that spousal caregivers were less likely to report a lack of family support suggesting that other family members or friends may suffer more in this respect and could benefit from additional support.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 92%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Furthermore, agreement with the family tradition of caregiving could be more likely in older caregivers, and this tradition could prevent the negative consequences of stress in caregiving. Our findings are consistent with those of other cross‐sectional studies with sufficient methodological quality (e.g., Chang, Brecht, & Carter, ; Schneider, Murray, Banerjee, & Mann, ) and support the hypothesis that low caregiver age is a risk factor for subjective burden. The higher subjective burden in the group of younger caregivers could be due to other demands such as child rearing, but two facts contradict this possible explanation: (a) in our study, age and subjective burden were correlated in the spouses’ subgroup (both in the bivariate analysis [ p = 0.04] and the multivariate model used for offspring [ p = 0.03]), and (b) our findings were consistent with the studies cited earlier.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 91%