Life situations and the care burden for stroke patients and their informal caregivers in a prospective cohort study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow chart of patients and caregivers in the study population.

Table I. Informal caregiver characteristics.

	Female caregivers		Male caregivers
	n	Mean (SD) or %	n	Mean (SD) or %
n ^a	174		92
Age, years		62.4 (13.26)		62.9 (14.78)
Caregiver’s relationship to patient, %
Spouse	81	46.6	39	42.4
Child	65	37.4	42	45.7
Sibling	9	5.2	4	4.4
Neighbour or friend	3	1.7	1	1.1
Grandchild	3	1.7	–	–
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law	4	2.3	2	2.2
Other relative	9	5.2	4	4.4
Distance to patient
Same household	79	45.4	41	44.6
Same building	6	3.5	3	3.3
Same municipality	71	40.8	34	37.0
Other municipality	18	10.3	14	15.2
Support given to patient
Before index admission:
Caregivers providing support	151		83
Hours/week		4.8 (14.60)		5.3 (13.43)
Support score		9.8 (9.64)		7.9 (7.61)
One week after discharge:
Caregivers providing support	169		90
Hours/week		10.8 (20.00)		10.2 (15.07)
Support score		14.7 (11.71)		13.0 (10.26)
Three months after index admission:
Caregivers providing support	140		68
Hours/week		12.7 (21.78)		7.9 (12.63)
Support score		14.6 (12.41)		10.8 (8.88)
Twelve months after index admission:
Caregivers providing support	121		67
Hours/week		8.8 (17.17)		9.6 (14.22)
Support score		14.3 (12.86)		10.7 (9.29)

^aData on sex missing for 2 caregivers.

Table II. Effects of potential determinants on amount of care provided by informal caregivers, estimated in multiple linear regression analysis. The t value is a measure of independent factor impact on amount of care provided.

Factor	Estimate	SD	t value	P
Functional ability, Katz score	10.16	0.8	12.97	<0.0001
Municipal social service support, h/week	–0.09	0.0	–9.11	<0.0001
Relationship to patient^a	–0.90	0.3	–3.08	0.0021
Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), score	–0.17	0.1	–2.92	0.0036
Distance to patient, score	–1.29	0.5	–2.86	0.0044
Patient’s sex	1.63	0.8	2.01	0.0445
Measurement occasion (time) during follow-up	–0.05	0.1	–0.59	0.5524
Patient’s age, years	0.03	0.1	0.49	0.6275
Caregiver’s age, years	–0.01	0.0	–0.37	0.7118

^a1 = spouse, 2 = children, 3 = neighbours, 4 = grandchildren, 5 = others.

Table III. Effects of potential determinants of Caregiver Burden Scale estimated by multiple linear regression analysis. The t value is a measure of independent factor impact on amount of care provided.

	Estimate	SD	t value	P
Informal caregiver support, h/week	0.44	0.0	10.06	<0.0001
Municipal social service support, h/week	6.02	1.1	5.41	<0.0001
Relationship to patient^a	–1.29	0.3	–3.86	0.0001
Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), score	–0.18	0.1	–2.71	0.0070
Patient’s age, years	–0.20	0.1	–2.41	0.0163
Patient’s sex	1.64	0.9	1.79	0.0746
Distance to patient, score	0.63	0.5	1.25	0.2114
Functional ability, Katz score	0.90	0.8	1.16	0.2452
Caregiver’s age, years	–0.03	0.0	–0.70	0.4854
Measurement occasion (time) during follow-up	–0.03	0.1	–0.31	0.7588

^a1 = spouse, 2 = children, 3 = neighbours, 4 = grandchildren, 5 = others.

Figure 2. Associations between caregivers’ and patients’ reported anxiety (a) and depression (b) scores, both based on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, the total Nottingham Health Profile score (c), and the Gothenburg Quality of Life activity score (d). All associations were adjusted for caregivers’ age and distance from caregivers’ home to patients’ home. Dots represent crude data, and solid lines represent splined (smoothed) data.