Low quality of life and psychological wellbeing contrast with moderate perceived burden in carers of people with severe multiple sclerosis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.05.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Caring for people with severe MS has a detrimental effect on quality of life.

  • Nonetheless, perceived carer burden was only moderate.

  • High carer anxiety, low economic status, and living in predict higher burden.

  • It is crucial to recognize carers as full partners in the provision of care.

Abstract

Background

Few studies have investigated wellbeing and burden in carers of people with severe multiple sclerosis (PwSMS).

Objectives

To assess the impact of providing care to PwSMS, and explore variables associated with perceived carer burden.

Methods

Cross-sectional assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), mood symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), and perceived carer burden (22-item Zarit Burden Interview, ZBI) in 78 PwSMS carers. Multivariate linear regression explored carer and PwSMS factors associated with ZBI score.

Results

Carers (61% women, mean age 60.2 years, 53% spouse/partner) had significantly lower HRQOL (all SF-36 scales) than the norm, especially for Role Limitation Emotional/Physical, and Emotional Wellbeing. Sixty-eight percent had pathologic (≥ 8) Anxiety, and 44% had pathologic Depression scores on HADS. Nonetheless, perceived carer burden was only moderate (mean ZBI score 35.6, SD 14.3). High carer anxiety (p < 0.0001), low household income (p = 0.009), and living with the PwSMS (p = 0.02) were independent predictors of perceived burden.

Conclusions

Caring for PwSMS has a detrimental effect on HRQOL and psychological wellbeing. High carer anxiety, low economic status, and living in predict higher burden. It is crucial to recognize PwSMS carers as full partners in the provision of care, and to respond to their own needs.

Introduction

Around 15% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have a progressive course from the outset (primary progressive MS), and a further 65% develop progressive disease after a variable period with relapsing-remitting course (secondary progressive MS) [1]. For those with primarily or secondarily progressive MS, treatment options to delay or prevent further clinical worsening are limited [2] and life expectancy is reduced by about a decade [3]. Post-marketing studies on disease-modifying MS treatments suggest that they may prolong survival [4]. Thus, people with MS can live for many years in a highly dependent condition.

A systematic literature review on 2097 carers of people with MS at all disease stages [5] revealed a huge impact on several aspects of carer life. More recent studies found reduced carer mental health, physical health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

We found only two studies that focused on carers of persons with severe MS (PwSMS), both of which used a qualitative approach. Golla et al. recently assessed the unmet needs of 12 carers of PwSMS in Cologne, Germany [17]. They found that carers and PwSMS formed a tight dyad, such that carers tended to group the unmet needs of the PwSMS with their own and rarely focused on their own wishes and restrictions. Similarly, a qualitative Italian study [18] uncovered emotional ‘contagion’ between PwSMS and their carers: the latter felt themselves to be the exclusive interpreters and providers of their loved ones' needs, and reported a profound sense of isolation and fear for the future.

In developing best practices to improve outcomes for people with chronic and progressive neurological diseases, it is important to gain insight into levels of burden, psychological distress, and HRQOL in carers [19]. In the present study, we assessed the consequences of providing care to PwSMS, and explored factors associated with perceived carer burden. The study was a secondary (cross-sectional) analysis of baseline data of the ongoing PeNSAMI trial [20], conducted on Italian PwSMS and their carers. Carer outcome measures were the 22-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) [21], [22], the Short Form-36 (SF-36) [23], and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [24].

Section snippets

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of the C. Besta Neurological Institute and Foundation, Milan; the S. Lucia Foundation, Rome; and the University Hospital of Catania. The trial is registered with Controlled Clinical Trials (trial registration number ISRCTN73082124).

Design and participants

The ongoing PeNSAMI trial to determine the effectiveness of a home-based palliative approach for PwSMS and their carers has been described in detail elsewhere [20]. The present cross-sectional study is a secondary

Results

Between January and November 2015, 78 PwSMS-carer dyads received the baseline visit. Table 1 shows information on carers and the PwSMS. Mean carer age was 60.2 years (range 23–84); most (62%) were women. Fifty-three percent were spouses of the PwSMS, 15% parents, 10% sons/daughters, and 17% other relatives; 3 (4%) were paid carers. The latter were immigrant women (two from Romania and one from El Salvador) in Italy from 7, 10 and 12 years; two cared for the PwSMS for 2 years, one for 6 years; two

Discussion

Carers play fundamental roles in providing long-term support to PwSMS, preventing patient institutionalization [5], [9], [12], [36]. Our study has shown that this role has a strong negative impact on carer HRQOL. In fact all SF-36 dimensions were significantly worse than the Italian norms, and the differences were particularly large for Role Limitation Physical, Role Limitation Emotional, and Emotional Wellbeing (Fig. 1). Reduced HRQOL in carers of people with MS was reported in a systematic

Conflicts of interest

PC has been a board member of Biogen, and received travel grants from Sanofi, Biogen, and Merk Serono. AL has been a Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono and Genzyme advisory board member. She received travel grants and honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi and Teva and her Institution received research grants from Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi and Teva. MGG has received research funding from Merck Serono and consulting and speaking fees from Biogen. FP has

Funding

This work was supported by the Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla [grant number 2014/S/1]. The funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, report writing, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Don Ward for help with the English.

References (42)

  • C. Pozzilli et al.

    Relationship between emotional distress in caregivers and health status in persons with multiple sclerosis

    Mult. Scler.

    (2004)
  • N. Figved et al.

    Caregiver burden in multiple sclerosis: the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms

    J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • A. Forbes et al.

    Informal carer activities, carer burden and health status in multiple sclerosis

    Clin. Rehabil.

    (2007)
  • F. Khan et al.

    Caregiver strain and factors associated with caregiver self-efficacy and quality of life in a community cohort with multiple sclerosis

    Disabil. Rehabil.

    (2007)
  • F. Patti et al.

    Caregiver quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a multicentre Italian study

    Mult. Scler.

    (2007)
  • J. Rivera-Navarro et al.

    Caregiver quality of life in multiple sclerosis (CAREQOL-MS) study group. Burden and health-related quality of life of Spanish caregivers of persons with multiple sclerosis

    Mult. Scler.

    (2009)
  • R.J. Buchanan et al.

    Caregiver burden among informal caregivers assisting people with multiple sclerosis

    Int J MS Care

    (2011)
  • A. Giordano et al.

    Health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms in significant others of people with multiple sclerosis: a community study

    Eur. J. Neurol.

    (2012)
  • T. McKenzie et al.

    Care partners and multiple sclerosis: differential effect on men and women

    Int J MS Care

    (2015)
  • L.A. Mitchell et al.

    Informal caregivers of clients with neurological conditions: profiles, patterns and risk factors for distress from a home care prevalence study

    BMC Health Serv. Res.

    (2015)
  • H. Golla et al.

    Unmet needs of caregivers of severely affected multiple sclerosis patients: a qualitative study

    Palliat Support Care

    (2015)
  • Cited by (23)

    • Caregiver wellbeing during Covid-19: does being hopeful play a role?

      2021, Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      These are people providing unpaid care and support to a relative, partner, or friend with long-term or terminal health conditions, disability, or care needs related to old age (Carers UK, 2020; Verbakel, 2018 Jun) Global shifts in population size, demography, and related health problems, in the context of limited financial resources, have made informal caregiving an essential feature of health and social care systems (Pickford 2008; Cottagiri & Sykes, 2019; Pickard & King, 2012). Informal carers provide a valuable role in society, which delivers significant multi-billion-pound cost savings each year (Fox, Sparrow, & Webber, 2010, The Schizophrenia Commission, 2012; Carers UK, Buckner & Yeandle, 2015) There are, however, significant personal costs attached to the role with carers typically reporting higher levels of physical and psychiatric morbidity particularly when compared to non-carer peers (George, Kecmanovic, Meade & Kolt, 2020; Cottagiri and Sykes, 2019; Lacey et al., 2019; Koutentaki et al 2020) Poorer health status is marked for those engaged in more caregiving hours (Smith et al 2014; Thomas, Saunders, Roland, Paddison, 2015) For example, the English national adult psychiatric morbidity survey revealed a positive relationship between caregiver status and clinical range psychiatric symptoms, with an observable decline in carer mental health in those providing 10 hours caregiving or more per week and a two-fold increase in clinical range symptoms (Smith et al 2014) The associations were independent of life stressors, such as financial problems that are also elevated in caregiver groups (Stansfeld et al 2014) Poorer functioning occurs alongside caregiving duties which, for many, can feel burdensome and negatively impact their quality-of-life (Thomas et al 2015; Gupta et al 2015; Topcu, Buchanan, Aubeeluck & Ulsever, 2020), and the amount and quality of direct caregiving they are able to provide (Kuipers, Onwumere & Bebbington, 2010; Giordano et al 2016) Compared to the general population, reports of social isolation and loneliness are elevated in carer populations (Vasileiou et al 2017), and disproportionately affect some carer groups more than others. In a study of family carers across different groups (e.g. brain injury, schizophrenia), carers of those with severe mental illness reported significantly poorer levels of social support (Magliano, Fiorillo, Malangone, De Rosa, & Maj, 2006).

    • Caregiver strain among life partners of persons with mild disability due to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

      2019, Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      In previous research on caregiver strain many different measures of caregiver strain or quality of life were used, making it difficult to compare outcomes. These measures include the Zarit Burden Interview (Giordano et al., 2016), General Health Questionnaire (Figved et al., 2007), Neuropsychiatric Inventory distress scale (Figved et al., 2007), Caregiver Strain Index (Chipchase and Lincoln, 2001; Khan et al., 2007), Care Burden Scale (Knight et al., 1997), Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS (Giordano et al., 2016), caregiver self-reported burden of care (Khan et al., 2007) and a 5-point Likert item for caregiver burden (Buchanan et al., 2011). In the current study we used the Modified Caregiver Strain Index, which provides a useful method for detecting strain levels among informal caregivers (Thornton and Travis, 2003).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Members listed at end of paper.

    View full text