Care Burden and Life Satisfaction of Caregivers Who are Providing Home Health Care to Patients

Figures & data

Table 1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Caregivers and Control Group

		Control (n=133)	Caregivers (n=133)	p value
Age (year)	Mean ± SD	51.2 ± 9.9	52.5 ± 10.5	0.289^†
Gender	n (%)
	Female	100 (100)	100 (100)	–
Educational status	n (%)			<0.001^††
	Illiterate	10 (7.5)	31 (23.3)
	Primary school	39 (29.3)	62 (46.6)
	Secondary school	12 (9.0)	15 (11.3)
	High school	33 (24.8)	12 (9.0)
	University	39 (29.3)	13 (9.8)
Marital status	n (%)			0.526^††
	Married	107 (80.5)	102 (76.7)
	Single	13 (9,8)	19 (14,3)
	Widowed/divorced	13 (9.8)	12 (9.0)
Employment status	n (%)			<0.001^††
	Housewife	52 (39.1)	82 (61.7)
	Non-employed	17 (12.8)	24 (18.0)
	Officer	35 (26.3)	4 (3.0)
	Worker	16 (12.0)	7 (5.3)
	Self-employment	7 (5.3)	5 (3.8)
	Retired	6 (4.5)	11 (8.3)
	Active employed	58 (43.6)	16 (12.0)	<0.001^††
	Active non-employed	75 (56.4)	117 (88.0)
Living place	n (%)			<0.001^††
	Village	0	4 (3.0)
	County	2 (1.5)	16 (12.0)
	City	131 (98.5)	113 (85.0)
Smoking (+)	n (%)	39 (29.3)	39 (29.3)	1.000^††
Alcohol (+)	n (%)	14 (10.5)	1 (0.8)	0.001^††
Social insurance (+)	n (%)	130 (97.7)	104 (78.2)	<0.001^††
Number of children	n (%)			0.209^††
	No	21 (15.8)	29 (21.8)
	Yes	112 (84.2)	104 (78.2)
	1	17 (12.8)	9 (6.8)
	2	54 (40.6)	45 (33.8)
	3 and	41 (30,8)	50 (37.6)
Cohabitation Status	n (%)			<0.001^††
	Spouse	40 (30.1)	8 (6.0)
	Family	93 (69.9)	116 (87.2)
	Other	-	9 (6.8)

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, ^†T-test in independent groups, ^††Chi-square test.

Table 2 Care-Related Characteristics of Caregivers

Characteristics		Value
Relationship with Patient		N	%
	Daughter-in-law	53	39.8
	Daughter	47	35.3
	Spouse	22	16.5
	Mother	4	3.0
	Other relatives	7	5.3
Reason for caring
	Family responsibility	70	52.6
	Emotional ties	40	30.1
	Having no one to care	11	8.3
	Economic reasons	1	0.8
	Religious Belief	11	8.3
Difficulties in caring
	Yes	52	39.1
	No	81	60.9
Patient caring time
	1–4 year	67	50.4
	5–9 year	36	27.1
	≥10 year	30	22.6
Feelingsin caring
	Sufficient	82	68.9
	Insufficient	37	31.1
Satisfaction with the caring
	Yes	115	86.5
	No	18	13.5
Counseling for caregiver
	Yes	47	37.6
	No	78	62.4
Most challenging situations in caring
	Diet compliance	63	48.1
	Correct use of drugs	34	26.0
	Fluid intake of the patient	13	9.9
	Other	21	16.0
Patients who have only one caregiver
	Yes	99	74.4
	No	34	25.6
Support for caregiver
	Yes	94	70.7
	No	39	29.3
Getting help from others
	Yes	43	32.3
	No	90	67.7
It is unnecessary
	Yes	7	43.8
	No	9	56.2

Table 3 The Relationship Between ZCBS and Socio-Demographic Factors in Caregivers

		N	ZBI	p value
Educational status
	Literate- Primary school	93	50.6 ± 14.2	<0.001^†
	Secondary school- High school	40	38.7 ± 18.3
Marital status				0.784^††
	Married	102	47.3 ± 15.7
	Single	19	44.3 ± 19.6
	Widowed/Divorced	12	49.2 ± 17.6
Employment status				0.981^†
	Active employed	16	47.1 ± 17.6
	Unemployed	117	47.0 ± 16.3
Living place				-
	Village	4	43.7 ± 11.9
	County	16	49.0 ± 12.4
	City	113	46.9 ± 17.1
Smoking				0.006^†
	Yes	39	41.0 ± 16.7
	No	94	49.5 ± 15.7
Alcohol				-
	Yes	1	29.00±12.1
	No	132	47.2 ± 16.4
Social insurance				0.031^†
	Yes	104	45.7 ± 16.0
	No	29	51.8 ± 17.1
Children				0.216^†
	Yes	29	42.3 ± 19.9
	No	104	48.3 ± 15.1
Cohabitation status				-
	Spouse	8	33.0 ± 10.8
	Family	116	48.8 ± 16.1
	other	9	36.5 ± 15.5

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, ^†Mann Whitney U-test, ^††Kruskal Wallis test.

Table 4 Analysis of ZBI Scores According to Caring-Related Characteristics

		N	ZBI	p value
Relationship to patien				0.376^†
	Daughter-in-law	53	48.0 ± 15.3
	Daughter	47	44.7 ± 16.3
	Spouse	22	48.7 ± 17.4
Reason for caring				0.024^†
	Family responsibility	70	47.2 ± 16.3
	Emotional ties	40	43.9 ± 17.3
	Having no one to care	11	58.4 ± 14.6
	Religious belief	11	46.0 ± 12.8
Difficulties in caring				0.104^††
	Yes	52	44.1 ± 15.5
	No	81	48.9 ± 16.8
Patient caring time				0.588^†
	1–4 year	67	48.3 ± 14.8
	5–9 year	36	44.1 ± 18.6
	≥10 year	30	47.7 ± 17.2
Feelings in caring				0.010^††
	Sufficient	82	43.7 ± 17.4
	Insufficient	37	52.8 ± 11.9
Satisfaction with the caring				0.164^††
	Yes	115	46.2 ± 16.7
	No	18	52.1 ± 13.8
Counseling for the caregiver				0.141^††
	Yes	47	50.4 ± 14.2
	No	78	45.4 ± 17.0
Most challenging situations in caring				0.957^†
	Fluid intake of the patient	13	45.9 ± 19.9
	Correct use of drugs	34	49.1 ± 13.8
	Diet compliance	63	46.8 ± 16.0
	Others	21	46.9 ± 18.5
Patients who have only one caregiver				0.119^††
	Yes	99	48.5 ± 15.6
	No	34	42.6 ± 18.0
Support for the caregiver				0.060^††
	Yes	94	49.3 ± 14.6
	No	39	41.6 ± 19.3
Getting help from other family members				0.001^††
	Yes	43	39.9 ± 16.9
	No	90	50.4 ± 15.1
Functional status of the patient				0.979^†
	Independent	15	45.0 ± 19.3
	Semi- dependent	45	48.4 ± 12.6
	Fully dependent	73	46.6 ± 17.9

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, †Kruskal Wallis test, ††Mann Whitney U-test.

Table 5 The Relationship Between SWLS Scores and Socio-Demographic Factors in Caregivers

		N	SWLS	p value
Educational status				<0.001^†
	Literate-Primary school	93	17.0 ± 5.4
	Secondary school- High school	40	21.6 ± 5.5
Marital status				0.873^††
	Married	102	18.2 ± 5.7
	Single	19	18.7 ± 6.0
	Widowed/ Divorced	12	19.0 ± 6.5
Employment status				0.020^†
	Active employed	16	21.6 ± 6.6
	Non-employed	117	18.0 ± 5.6
Living place				-
	Village	4	16.2 ± 8.2
	County	16	21.5 ± 6.2
	City	113	18.0 ± 5.6
Smoking				0.003^†
	Yes	39	20.7 ± 5.7
	No	94	17.4 ± 5.6
Alcohol				-
	Yes	1	25.0±0.0
	No	132	18.3 ± 5.8
Social insurance				0.081^†
	Yes	104	18.9 ± 6.0
	No	29	16.6 ± 4.9
Children				0.277^†
	Yes	29	19.7 ± 6.7
	No	104	18.0 ± 5.5
Cohabitation status				-
	Spouse	8	23.3 ± 5.0
	Family	116	17.9 ± 5.8
	other	9	20.5 ± 4.0

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, ^†Mann Whitney U-test, ^††Kruskal Wallis test.

Table 6 Analysis of SWLS Scores Based on Characteristics Associated with Caring

		n	SWLS	p value
Relationship to the patient				0.187^†
	Daughter-in-law	53	19.6 ± 5.6
	Daughter	47	18.2 ± 6.3
	Spouse	22	17.3 ± 5.6
Reason for caring				0.566^†
	Family responsibility	70	18.9 ± 6.2
	Emotional ties	40	18.4 ± 5.7
	Having no one to care	11	16.1 ± 4.8
	Religious belief	11	17.6 ± 4.9
Difficulties in caring				0.141^††
	Yes	52	19.1 ± 5.1
	No	81	17.9 ± 6.2
Patient caring time				0.402^†
	1–4 year	67	18.9 ± 5.5
	5–9 year	36	18.1 ± 6.4
	≥10 year	30	17.5 ± 5.9
Feelings in caring				0.111^††
	Sufficient	82	19.3 ± 5.8
	Insufficient	37	17.4 ± 5.5
Satisfaction with the caring				0.607^††
	Yes	115	18.5 ± 5.8
	No	18	17.6 ± 6.0
Counseling for the caregiver				0.683^††
	Yes	47	18.1 ± 6.2
	No	78	18.5 ± 5.6
Most challenging situations in caring				0.398^†
	Fluid intake of the patient	13	18.8 ± 5.2
	Correct use of drugs	34	18.1 ± 6.2
	Diet compliance	63	18.9 ± 5.8
	Others	21	16.3 ± 5.0
Patients who have only one caregiver				0.261^††
	Yes	99	18.0 ± 5.6
	No	34	19.7 ± 6.4
Getting help from other family members				0.148^††
	Yes	43	19.3 ± 5.3
	No	90	17.9 ± 6.0
Functional status of the patient				0.545^†
	Independent	15	17.4 ± 6.4
	Semi-dependent	45	19.1 ± 5.6
	Fully dependent	73	18.1 ± 5.9

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, ^†Kruskal Wallis test, ^††Mann Whitney U-test.

Table 7 Distribution of SWLS Scores in Caregivers and Control Groups

		Caregivers (n=133)	Control Group (n=133)	p value
SWLS	Mean ± SS	18.4 ± 5.8	26.4 ± 5.7	<0.001^†

Note: Bold numbers emphasizes significant p values, ^†Mann Whitney U-test.

Figure 1 Distribution of SWLS scores in caregivers and control groups.

Figure 2 Correlation between ZBI and SWLS score in caregivers.