Role of Social Support in Predicting Caregiver Burden

Reliability and validity of the COPE Index among caregivers of disabled people

“…In particular, multiple caregiving tasks and extended amounts of time spent on caregiving, and challenges caused by the behaviour of the recipient seem to stress caregivers (Savundranayagam, V., & Kosloski, 2011). On the other hand, higher personal mastery (van der Lee, Bakker, Duivenvoorden, & Dröes, 2014), social support (Rodakowski, Skidmore, Rogers, & Schulz, 2012) as well as increased use of positive coping strategies (Harmell, Chattillion, Roepke, & Mausbach, …”

Undergraduate caregivers for individuals with chronic conditions: Stressors and needs

“…Although participants in the current study did not specify if they lived with the care recipient, in other samples of caregivers, co-residence with the care recipient has been associated with increased burden and psychological distress among caregivers [16][17][18], and with increased interference in school work and in extracurricular participation among young caregivers [16]. This sample's tendency to live with family or romantic partners may be attributed to intergenerational households, financial constraints, and accessibility to the care recipient.…”

“…Caregiving tasks may require a significant amount of time and energy and can be distressing to individuals without the skills in providing care. Caregivers may experience stress as a reaction to changes in the quality of their relationship with the care recipient, changes in the care recipient's medical condition, increased financial obligations, changes in their family dynamics, fewer sources of social support, and inadequate coping resources [18,23,26]. Caregivers in this study are especially vulnerable to role engulfment, which is a loss of identify outside of the role of caregiving [27], given their potentially developing identities as college students and caregivers.…”

“…Responses for each item are summed to provide a score between 0 and 27 [9]. Scores are grouped into ranges: no depression (0-4); mild depression (5-9); moderate depression (10)(11)(12)(13)(14); moderately severe depression (15)(16)(17)(18)(19); and severe depression (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). The PHQ-9 has been shown to have excellent internal consistency (α's .86 to .89) in validation studies, as well as in the current sample (α =.88).…”

“…Respondents rate the degree to which various items have bothered them over the past two weeks using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Total scores range from 0 to 27, and scores are characterized by the following ranges: mild anxiety (5-9), moderate anxiety (10)(11)(12)(13)(14), and severe anxiety (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). The GAD-7 has shown good internal consistency both in standardization samples (α = .92) and in the current sample (α = .92), as well as very good test-retest reliability and convergent validity in validation studies [10].…”