Prospective Study
Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
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 Male 78 (37.1) Female 132 (62.9) Age (yr) ≤ 30 79 (37.6) 31-50 97 (46.2) 51-70 34 (16.2) mean ± SD 35.9 ± 18.1 Marital status Married 98 (46.7) Single 57 (27.1) Divorced 12 (5.7) Widowed 43 (20.5) Educational status No formal education 21 (10.0) Primary 74 (35.2) Secondary 83 (39.6) Tertiary 32 (15.2) Employment status Not employed 81 (38.6) Artisan 10 (4.8) Traders/business 21 (10.0) Farmer 15 (7.1) Contractors 4 (1.9) Retired 50 (23.8) Civil/public servant 19 (9.0) Student/apprentice 10 (4.8) Relationship to care receiver Parents 132 (62.9) Spouse/partner 43 (20.5) Sibling 21 (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 strategies Acceptance (changes in effort to accept things) I have learnt how to adjust to things I cannot change 2.95 ± 1.00 Helped me take things as they come 3.00 ± 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 life 2.93 ± 1.03 Lead me to be more accepting of things 3.25 ± 0.96 Appreciation (changes in appreciation in life) Lead me to meet people who have become some of my best friends 3.60 ± 0.73 Helped me become more aware of the love and support available from other people 3.21 ± 0.91 Brought my family closer together 3.29 ± 0.84 Emotion-focused coping strategies Family (family unity) Made me more sensitive to family issues 3.24 ± 0.65 Helped me to deal better with stress and problems 3.33 ± 0.78 Positive self-view (psychological coping skills) Taught me to be patient 3.43 ± 0.85 Helped me become a stronger person more able to cope effectively with future life challenges 3.24 ± 1.12 Helped me realize who my real friends are 3.23 ± 1.05 Empathy (increase in empathy for all human beings) Made me more aware and concerned for the future of all human beings 3.29 ± 0.85 Taught me that everyone has a purpose in life 3.31 ± 0.91 Made me realize the importance of planning for my family’s future 3.11 ± 1.76
Table 3 Relationship between caregivers’ characteristics and coping strategies
Variables Coping strategies χ 2 (P value) Effective (n = 185) Ineffective (n = 25) Total (n = 210) Sex 14.77 (0.000)a Male 60 (76.9) 18 (23.1) 78 (100) Female 125 (95.0) 7 (5.0) 132 (100) Age (in years) 17.79 (0.000)a ≤ 30 70 (88.6) 9 (11.4) 79 (37.6) 31-50 92 (94.8) 5 (5.2) 97 (46.2) 51-70 23 (67.6) 11 (32.4) 34 (16.2) mean ± SD 35.9 ± 18.1 Educational status 48.45 (0.000)a No formal education 17 (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 χ 2 (P value) Level of burden Effective (n = 185) Ineffective (n = 25) Total (n = 210) 6.94 (0.030)a Trivial or no burden 37 (100) 0 (0.0) 37 (100) Moderate burden 67 (88.1) 9 (11.9) 76 (100) Severe burden 81 (83.5) 16 (16.5) 97 (100)
Table 5 Functional status of care receivers
Functional ability n (%) 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/car 189 (90.0) 21 (10.0) Preparing meals 182 (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 finance 203 (96.7) 7 (3.3) Performing household chores 163 (77.6) 47 (22.4) Using the telephone 32 (15.2) 178 (84.8) Mobility 142 (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 χ 2 (P value) Functional ability Effective (n = 185) Ineffective (n = 25) Total (n = 210) 17.35 (0.000)a Low functional ability 130 (94.9) 7 (5.1) 137 (100) High functional ability 55 (75.3) 18 (24.7) 73 (100)
Table 7 Relationship between duration of care and caregivers’ coping strategies
Variables Coping strategies χ 2 (P value) Duration of care (in mo) Effective (n = 185) Ineffective (n = 25) Total (n = 210) 17.72 (0.000)a 1-5 32 (72.7) 12 (27.3) 44 (100) 6-10 58 (85.3) 10 (14.7) 68 (100) ≥ 11 95 (96.9) 3 (3.1) 98 (100)
Table 8 Relationship between desire to continue caregiving and caregivers’ coping strategies
Variables Coping strategies χ 2 (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 cases Burden level χ 2 (P value) No burden (n = 37) Moderate burden (n = 76) Severe burden (n = 97) Total (n = 210) 59.01 (0.000)a Breast cancer 14 (20.0) 44 (62.8) 12 (17.1) 70 (100) Prostate cancer 7 (11.5) 10 (16.4) 44 (72.1) 61 (100) Cervical cancer 5 (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 lymphoma 2 (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 types 1 (20.0) 1 (20.0) 3 (60.0) 5 (100)
Table 10 Association between type of cancer and caregivers’ coping strategies
Type of cancer cases Coping strategies χ 2 (P value) Effective (n = 185) Ineffective (n = 25) Total (n = 210) 7.00 (0.320) Breast cancer 66 (94.3) 4 (5.7) 70 (100) Prostate cancer 52 (85.2) 9 (14.8) 61 (100) Cervical cancer 37 (86.0) 6 (14.0) 43 (100) Colorectal cancer 13 (86.7) 2 (13.3) 15 (100) Hodgkin’s lymphoma 7 (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 types 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 5 (100)