Assessing the needs of informal caregivers to cancer survivors: a review of the instruments

Objective: Cancer may impact negatively on an informal caregiver's health long after treatment has ended. This review identifies the self-report measures currently in use to measure caregivers need for support and determines their scientific soundness and clinical utility.

Method: A systematic electronic database search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, BNI ProQuest was conducted. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of needs assessment tools for caregivers of cancer survivors (excluding advanced disease) were extracted and summarised.

Results: Seven cancer survivor caregiver needs assessment tools were identified. Data on instrument development was well reported, although variability was noted in their structure and content. The majority demonstrated some degree of reliability and validity; only two were evaluated for test–retest reliability (CaSPUN and SPUNS) with only the SPUNS showing a high degree of reliability over time. The Health Care Needs Survey (HCNS), Needs Assessment of Family Caregivers-Cancer (NAFC-C) and Cancer Caregiving Tasks Consequences and Needs Questionnaire (CaTCoN) have been validated at various stages of the cancer continuum. Minimal data was available on responsiveness.

Conclusion: All assessment tools identified require further psychometric analysis. For research purposes, the use of the SPUNS (with its acceptable test–retest reliability) appears most appropriate; although its length may be of concern for clinical use; therefore, the shorter SCNS-P&C is likely to be more suitable for use clinically. At present, the NAFC-C demonstrates a great potential in both the research and clinical environments; however, it requires further psychometric testing before it can be fully recommended. Further analysis is necessary on ideal response formats and the meaning of a total needs score.

A Comparison of Support Needs Between Rural and Urban Family Caregivers Providing Palliative Care

The present study examined the support needs for urban and rural family caregivers of a palliative family member using a cross-sectional telephone survey in northeastern Ontario, Canada (n = 140; 70 urban, 70 rural). Support needs identified as most important by both the groups were informational. Rural caregivers reported greater unmet needs in tangible support (P =.01). No differences were observed between the groups for emotional or informational support needs (P =.25 and P =.35, respectively). Rural and urban caregivers perceived care for care recipients as accessible (mean accessibility score 1.9, standard deviation [SD] = 0.09 and 1.7, SD = 0.7, respectively, P =.20); the majority indicated that when needed, services were easily and quickly obtained. Although there are similarities in the formal care experiences, rural caregivers experience greater unmet needs in receiving support for instrumental activities. © The Author(s) 2013.

Comparing the experiences of rural and urban family caregivers of the terminally ill

Introduction: There are many challenges in delivering rural health services; this is particularly true for the delivery of palliative care. Previous work has identified consistent themes around end-of-life care, including caregiver burden in providing care, the importance of informal care networks and barriers imposed by geography. Despite these well-known barriers, few studies have explored the experience of palliative care in rural settings. The purpose of the present study was to compare the experiences of rural family caregivers actively providing end-of-life care to the experiences of their urban counterparts. Methods: Caregivers' perceived health status, the experience of burden in caregiving, assessment of social supports and the pattern of formal care used by the terminally ill were explored using a consistent and standardized measurement approach. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 100 informal caregivers (44 rural, 56 urban) actively providing care to a terminally ill patient recruited from a publicly funded community agency located in northeastern Ontario, Canada. The telephone-based survey included questions assessing: (i) caregiver perceived burden (14-item instrument based on the Caregiver's Burden Scale in End-of-Life Care [CBS-EOLC]); (ii) perceived social support (modified version of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support [MSPSS] consisting of 12 items); and (iii) functional status of the care recipient (assessed using the Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance scale). Results: Rural and urban caregivers were providing care to recipients with similar functional status; the majority of care recipients were either capable of all self-care or experiencing some limitation in self-care. No group differences were observed for caregiver perceived burden: both rural and urban caregivers reported low levels of burden (CBS-EOLC score of 26.5 [SD=8.1] and 25.0 [SD=9.2], respectively; p=0.41). Urban and rural caregivers also reported similarly high levels of social support (mean MSPSS total score of 4.3 [SD=0.7] and 4.1 [SD=0.8], respectively; p=0.40). Although caregivers across both settings reported using a comparable number of services (rural 4.8 [SD=1.9] vs urban 4.5 [SD=1.8]; p=0.39), the types of services used differed. Rural caregivers reported greater use of family physicians (65.1% vs 40.7%; p=0.02), emergency room visits (31.8% vs 13.0%; p=0.02) and pharmacy services (95.3% vs 70.4%; p=0.002), while urban caregivers reported greater use of caregiver respite services (29.6% vs 11.6%; p=0.03). Conclusion: Through the use of standardized tools, this study explored the experiences of rural informal family caregivers providing palliative care in contrast to the experiences of their urban counterparts. The results of the present study suggest that while there are commonalities to the caregiving experience regardless of setting, key differences also exist. Thus, location is a factor to be considered when implementing palliative care programs and services. © K Brazil, S Kaasalainen, A Williams, C Rodriguez, 2013.