Prospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Oncol. Dec 24, 2020; 11(12): 1045-1063
Published online Dec 24, 2020. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v11.i12.1045
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 210)
Variables
n (%)
Gender
Male78 (37.1)
Female132 (62.9)
Age (yr)
≤ 3079 (37.6)
31-5097 (46.2)
51-7034 (16.2)
mean ± SD35.9 ± 18.1
Marital status
Married 98 (46.7)
Single57 (27.1)
Divorced 12 (5.7)
Widowed 43 (20.5)
Educational status
No formal education21 (10.0)
Primary 74 (35.2)
Secondary 83 (39.6)
Tertiary 32 (15.2)
Employment status
Not employed 81 (38.6)
Artisan10 (4.8)
Traders/business 21 (10.0)
Farmer15 (7.1)
Contractors 4 (1.9)
Retired 50 (23.8)
Civil/public servant19 (9.0)
Student/apprentice 10 (4.8)
Relationship to care receiver
Parents132 (62.9)
Spouse/partner 43 (20.5)
Sibling21 (10.0)
Friend 10 (4.8)
Brethren 4 (1.9)
Table 2 Coping styles adopted by caregivers to care for advanced cancer patients
Categories
Coping strategies sub-scale
Assertions
mean ± SD
Problem-focused coping strategiesAcceptance (changes in effort to accept things)I have learnt how to adjust to things I cannot change2.95 ± 1.00
Helped me take things as they come3.00 ± 1.09
Shown me that all people need to be loved 3.24 ± 0.84
Reprioritization (self-realization)Helped me become more focused on priorities with a deeper sense of purpose of life2.93 ± 1.03
Lead me to be more accepting of things3.25 ± 0.96
Appreciation (changes in appreciation in life)Lead me to meet people who have become some of my best friends3.60 ± 0.73
Helped me become more aware of the love and support available from other people3.21 ± 0.91
Brought my family closer together 3.29 ± 0.84
Emotion-focused coping strategies Family (family unity)Made me more sensitive to family issues3.24 ± 0.65
Helped me to deal better with stress and problems3.33 ± 0.78
Positive self-view (psychological coping skills)Taught me to be patient3.43 ± 0.85
Helped me become a stronger person more able to cope effectively with future life challenges3.24 ± 1.12
Helped me realize who my real friends are3.23 ± 1.05
Empathy (increase in empathy for all human beings)Made me more aware and concerned for the future of all human beings3.29 ± 0.85
Taught me that everyone has a purpose in life3.31 ± 0.91
Made me realize the importance of planning for my family’s future3.11 ± 1.76
Table 3 Relationship between caregivers’ characteristics and coping strategies
VariablesCoping strategies
χ2 (P value)

Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

Sex 14.77 (0.000)a
Male60 (76.9)18 (23.1)78 (100)
Female125 (95.0)7 (5.0)132 (100)
Age (in years)17.79 (0.000)a
≤ 3070 (88.6)9 (11.4)79 (37.6)
31-5092 (94.8)5 (5.2)97 (46.2)
51-7023 (67.6)11 (32.4)34 (16.2)
mean ± SD35.9 ± 18.1
Educational status48.45 (0.000)a
No formal education17 (80.9)4 (19.1)21 (10.0)
Primary 70 (94.6)4 (5.4)74 (35.2)
Secondary 81 (97.6)2 (2.6)83 (39.6)
Tertiary 17 (53.1)15 (46.9)32 (15.2)
Table 4 Association between caregivers’ perceived burden level and coping strategies
Variables
Coping strategies
χ2 (P value)
Level of burden
Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

6.94 (0.030)a
Trivial or no burden37 (100)0 (0.0)37 (100)
Moderate burden67 (88.1)9 (11.9)76 (100)
Severe burden81 (83.5)16 (16.5)97 (100)
Table 5 Functional status of care receivers
Functional abilityn (%)

Yes
No
Eating (need someone to feed him/her)156 (74.3)54 (25.7)
Bathing/showering 162 (77.1)48 (22.9)
Dressing (choosing and wearing appropriate clothing)157 (74.8)53 (25.2)
Grooming (brushing hair, teeth)23 (11.0)187 (89.0)
Using toilet 151 (71.9)5 9 (28.1)
Incontinence 172 (81.9)38 (18.1)
Transferring from bed/chair/car189 (90.0)21 (10.0)
Preparing meals182 (86.7)28 (13.3)
Staying alone must be supervised 196 (93.3)14 (6.7)
Taking medication 12 (5.7)198 (94.3)
Managing money or finance203 (96.7)7 (3.3)
Performing household chores 163 (77.6)47 (22.4)
Using the telephone32 (15.2)178 (84.8)
Mobility142 (67.6)68 (32.4)
Wandering or the potential to wander 40 (19.1)170 (80.9)
Table 6 Relationship between functional level of the care receiver (cancer patient) and caregivers’ coping strategies
Variables
Coping strategies
χ2 (P value)
Functional ability
Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

17.35 (0.000)a
Low functional ability130 (94.9)7 (5.1)137 (100)
High functional ability55 (75.3)18 (24.7)73 (100)
Table 7 Relationship between duration of care and caregivers’ coping strategies
Variables
Coping strategies
χ2 (P value)
Duration of care (in mo)
Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

17.72 (0.000)a
1-532 (72.7)12 (27.3)44 (100)
6-1058 (85.3)10 (14.7)68 (100)
≥ 1195 (96.9)3 (3.1)98 (100)
Table 8 Relationship between desire to continue caregiving and caregivers’ coping strategies
Variables
Coping strategies
χ2 (P value)
Desire to continue caregiving
Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

Not to continue 66 (75.9)21 (24.1) 87 (100)21.19 (0.000)a
To continue 119 (96.7)4 (3.3) 123 (100)
Table 9 Association between type of cancer and caregivers’ perceived burden level
Type of cancer casesBurden level
χ2 (P value)

No burden (n = 37)
Moderate burden (n = 76)
Severe burden (n = 97)
Total (n = 210)

59.01 (0.000)a
Breast cancer14 (20.0)44 (62.8)12 (17.1)70 (100)
Prostate cancer7 (11.5)10 (16.4)44 (72.1)61 (100)
Cervical cancer5 (11.6)15 (34.8)23 (53.5)43 (100)
Colorectal cancer 3 (20.0)3 (20.0)9 (60.0)15 (100)
Hodgkin’s lymphoma2 (25.0)2 (25.0)4 (50.0)8 (100)
HIV-related cancers (Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, etc.)5 (62.5)1 (12.5)2 (25.0)8 (100)
Other types1 (20.0)1 (20.0)3 (60.0)5 (100)
Table 10 Association between type of cancer and caregivers’ coping strategies
Type of cancer casesCoping strategies
χ2 (P value)

Effective (n = 185)
Ineffective (n = 25)
Total (n = 210)

7.00 (0.320)
Breast cancer66 (94.3)4 (5.7)70 (100)
Prostate cancer52 (85.2)9 (14.8)61 (100)
Cervical cancer37 (86.0)6 (14.0)43 (100)
Colorectal cancer 13 (86.7)2 (13.3)15 (100)
Hodgkin’s lymphoma7 (87.5)1 (12.5)8 (100)
HIV-related cancers (Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, etc.)7 (87.5)1 (12.5)8 (100)
Other types3 (60.0)2 (40.0)5 (100)