目的:(1)描述评估癌症患者非正式照顾者负担的现有工具,(2)描述这些工具是如何被验证的;(3)描述现有评估工具条目的兴趣领域。
背景:癌症患者的非正式护理人员的护理人员负担极大地影响了他们的生活。有各种各样的相关评估工具可用,但是没有研究可以帮助研究人员选择工具。
方法:使用关键字\'cancer\'进行搜索,\'看护者\',Medline(PubMed)中的\'负担\'和\'量表\',CINAHL和EMBASE包括开发或应用工具来评估癌症患者非正式护理人员负担的文章。一旦确定了合格的工具,我们搜索了他们的“主要参考”研究。如果原始量表是在癌症患者非正式照顾者以外的人群中评估的,我们再次在癌症患者照顾者的人群中搜索心理测量。
结果:本研究检索到938篇关于开发或应用癌症患者非正式照顾者负担工具的文章,包括42个尺度。原始量表的内部一致性范围为0.53至0.96。最初开发的十九个量表用于评估痴呆症患者的照顾者负担,中风和其他疾病后来被用于癌症患者的照顾者,其中八个尚未验证。重新分类所有关注的量表领域表明,量表评估更侧重于护理人员的身体健康,情绪状态和护理任务。
结论:本综述确定了许多评估癌症患者非正式照顾者负担的量表,并给出了推荐的量表。然而,一部分仍然需要验证。制定新的比额表建议以理论框架为基础,并考虑评估支助资源的维度。
结论:研究解决了什么问题?:本文整理了非正式癌症患者护理负担的评估工具。它还提供了有关适用人口的信息,信度和效度。主要发现是什么?:可以考虑使用41种量表,其中八个尚未验证。量表更侧重于评估护理人员的身体健康,情绪状态和护理任务,在支持资源方面较少。这项研究将在哪里以及对谁产生影响?:对医院或社区中癌症患者的非正式护理人员有影响,以及相关研究人员。
■参照系统评价检索。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
OBJECTIVE: (1) To describe existing tools to assess the burden of informal caregivers of people with cancer, (2) to describe how these tools have been validated and (3) to describe the areas of interest of existing assessment tool entries.
BACKGROUND: The caregiver burden of informal caregivers of people with cancer greatly affects their lives. There is a wide variety of relevant assessment tools available, but there are no studies to help researchers to select tools.
METHODS: A search was conducted using the keywords \'cancer\', \'caregiver\', \'burden\' and \'scale\' in Medline (PubMed), CINAHL and EMBASE to include articles that developed or applied tools to assess the burden on informal caregivers of cancer patients. Once eligible tools were identified, we searched their \'primary reference\' studies. If the original scale was assessed in a population other than informal caregivers of cancer patients, we again searched for psychometric measures in the population of caregivers of cancer patients.
RESULTS: This study retrieved 938 articles on developing or applying the informal caregiver burden instrument for cancer patients, including 42 scales. Internal consistency of the original scales ranged from 0.53 to 0.96. Nineteen scales initially developed to assess caregiver burden for patients with dementia, stroke and other disorders were later used for caregivers of cancer patients, eight of which have not yet been validated. Reclassifying all scale domains of concern revealed that scale assessments focused more on caregivers\' physical health, emotional state and caregiving tasks.
CONCLUSIONS: This
review identifies many scales for assessing informal caregiver burden in cancer patients and gives scales recommended. However, a portion still needs to be validated. The development of a new scale proposes to be based on a theoretical framework and to consider dimensions for assessing support resources.
CONCLUSIONS: What problem did the study address?: This paper collates assessment tools on the burden of informal carers of people with cancer. It also provides information on the applicable population, reliability and validity. What were the main findings?: 41 scales could be considered for use, eight of which have not been validated. The scales focus more on assessing caregivers\' physical health, emotional state and caregiving tasks, and less on the dimension of support resources. Where and on whom will the research have an impact?: There are implications for informal carers of cancer patients in hospitals or in the community, as well as for relevant researchers.
UNASSIGNED: Retrieved with reference to systematic evaluation.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.