To describe differences in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia in eight European countries and assess changes after transition from home to institutional long-term care.

Background

Country differences in the experience of burden and health-related quality of life are rarely described.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Methods

Data on burden and health-related quality of life were collected at baseline (conducted between November 2010–April 2012) and follow-up (after 3 months) using face-to-face interviews. Two groups of informal caregivers included those: (1) of people with dementia recently admitted to institutional long-term care facilities; and those (2) of people with dementia receiving home care. Statistical analyses focused on descriptive comparisons between groups and countries.

Results

Informal caregivers of about 2014 were interviewed. Informal caregivers of people with dementia at home experienced more burden compared with informal caregivers of recently institutionalised people with dementia. Almost no differences in health-related quality of life were found between groups. Large differences between countries on outcomes were found. Informal caregivers of people with dementia who made the transition to an institutional long-term care facility experienced a statistically significant decrease in burden and psychological distress at follow-up.

Conclusion

Cross-country differences may be related to differences in health and social care systems. Taking this into account, informal caregiver interventions need to be tailored to (country specific) contexts and (individual) needs. Findings highlight the positive impact of admission to institutional long-term care on informal caregiver well-being.

Why is this research needed?

There is a lack of data regarding variations in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life across different countries and settings.
In developing best practices to improve outcomes for informal caregivers and their relatives, insight into levels of experienced burden and health-related quality of life is needed.

What are the key findings?

Levels of informal caregiver burden were higher for those caring for people with dementia at home compared with institutional long-term care in all participating European countries.
Substantial differences between countries were evident for both informal caregiver burden and health-related quality of life.
Informal caregiver burden decreased and psychological well-being increased following admission of the people with dementia to institutional long-term care.

How should the findings be used to influence policy, practice, policy, research or education?

Interventions that aim to reduce caregiver's burden should take contextual aspects into account. Different countries and settings require different approaches.
Admission to institutional long-term care can play an important role in the improvement of informal caregiver's well-being. The statistically significant reduction in caregiver burden and psychological distress after transition may underline this importance.
Decision makers should take into account variation in informal caregiver's burden and health-related quality of life according to setting and country to manage and improve dementia care policies and related services for informal caregivers.

Introduction

During the trajectory of dementia, the needs of people with dementia (PwD) rapidly change over time and PwD become more dependent on the care provided by (informal) caregivers (Bullock 2004). Often, at a certain time point, admission to an institutional long-term care (ILTC) facility is inevitable (Sury et al. 2013).

One of the most difficult decisions for many caregivers, together with their relative, is when and whether admission to an ILTC facility is needed (Caron et al. 2006). Besides personal preferences, the decision for transition to an ILTC facility is influenced by long-term care policies, social and cultural aspects and informal caregiver's personal characteristics.

In dementia care, there has been a shift towards community care provision in place of ILTC (European Commission 2005, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development 2005). As a result of this deinstitutionalisation, community care has expanded with major implications for informal caregivers of PwD. Since PwD remain at home for as long as possible, they will require a range of services to maintain them at home to postpone admission to ILTC.

Social and cultural aspects for example healthcare resources, support systems and available care services vary widely between countries (Torti et al. 2004). In Europe, there are large differences apparent in welfare and healthcare systems, formal care services, expenditure on ILTC and on informal care use that have an impact on caregivers. In general, it can be stated that provision of care services are lower and informal care is higher in the more southern and eastern European countries (European Commission 2005, Gustavsson et al. 2010, Vellas et al. 2012). In Spain, family caregiving plays a more crucial role (Gustavsson et al. 2010, Vellas et al. 2012) compared with other countries. The majority of PwD in Spain (about 80%) are exclusively cared for by family (IMSERSO 2005). Financial constraints are another illustration of cultural variety. Countries like Sweden and the Netherlands offer an extensive (long-term) health and social care system. Long-term care is primarily considered to be the responsibility of country councils and municipalities (Ministry of Health & Social Affairs 2007). Since all citizens are compulsorily insured for ILTC, financial constraints for informal caregivers do not exist in case of admission to ILTC. In contrast, in Estonia family members are financially responsible for providing care to their relatives/family (Paat & Merilain 2010).

As a consequence of cultural differences, informal caregivers’ demographical composition also differ (Hallberg et al. 2013). For example, the mean age of PwD and their partners in Sweden is older compared with other European countries such as Estonia. A relatively high proportion of care in Sweden is provided by the partner (Riedel & Kraus 2011).

Informal caregivers’ personal circumstances (for example, carer quality of life and burden) have been shown to be extremely important determinants of ILTC admission (Yeh et al. 2002, Torti et al. 2004, Argimon et al. 2005). Study findings by Davies and Nolan showed that more than half of the decisions about transition are made by the caregiver (Davies & Nolan 2003), thus maintaining informal caregivers’ health is of paramount importance.

Background

The impact of caring for PwD on informal caregiver's health outcomes has been extensively studied. The effects of caregiving on PwD are typically measured in terms of caregivers’ health outcomes for example, distress, depression and burden (Schulz et al. 2004, Brodaty & Donkin 2009) and impact on the informal caregivers health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (Markowitz et al. 2003). Numerous studies report that being an informal caregiver of a person with dementia is associated with negative impact on these outcomes (Serrano-Aguilar et al. 2006, Brodaty & Donkin 2009) which are also prominent factors in models of caregivers stress (Pearlin et al. 1990). However, research that focuses on the transition process from home to ILTC and the influence on informal caregivers is limited. Focusing on this breakpoint of care from home to ILTC is of special interest since it is well known that informal caregiving does not end at admission to an ILTC facility. Following admission, daily care obligations of informal caregivers often reduce but are replaced with other demands such as administrative tasks and staff interaction (Schulz et al. 2004, Strang et al. 2006, Nikzad-Terhune et al. 2010). Some research has reported that the majority of informal caregivers make frequent visits (Tornatore & Grant 2004) to the PwD after ILTC placement.

Evidence of existing studies on whether ILTC placement is associated with an improvement in informal caregivers’ health, following ILTC admission, is mixed. Some evidence showed a reduction in burden and improvement of health status (Grasel 2002, Bond et al. 2003, Mausbach et al. 2007, Gaugler et al. 2008, 2010) after ILTC placement, while others have shown no improvement at all or even a decrease in informal caregivers’ health outcomes (Matsuda et al. 1997, Elmstahl et al. 1998, Almberg et al. 2000, Lieberman & Fisher 2001, Tornatore & Grant 2002, Schulz et al. 2004). Reasons for these conflicting findings may relate to methodological differences between studies (for example, heterogeneity of the people and variation in people population, relatively small sample sizes, variation in follow-up measurement) (Gaugler et al. 2010) but could also exist because of country/cultural differences. Although a substantial amount of research has been reported on informal caregiver's health outcomes after transition of the person with dementia, country differences are rarely described. The current RightTimePlaceCare study extends previous research by focusing on these cross-national country differences. To manage any methodological drawbacks as previously discussed, this study focuses on informal caregivers of PwD who are at the margins of care (i.e. at the point when home care may become insufficient and/or inadequate and admission to an ILTC facility might be triggered) and either living at home or recently admitted to ILTC.

The study

Aims

The aim of this study is to describe differences in caregiver burden and HRQoL of informal caregivers of PwD in eight European countries and to assess changes in caregiver burden and HRQoL after transition from home care (HC) to an ILTC facility.

The specific research questions for this study are:

How does caregiver burden and HRQoL differ for informal caregivers of PwD between HC and ILTC?
How does caregiver burden and HRQoL differ for informal caregivers of PwD across eight European countries?
Does caregiver burden and HRQoL of informal caregivers change following admission of PwD to an ILTC facility?

Design

As part of the RightTimePlaceCare (RTPC) project, data were collected in a prospective cohort study in eight European countries. The eight countries included in RTPC represent Estonia in the east, England in the west, Sweden and Finland in the north, Spain and France in the south and Germany and the Netherlands in central Europe. Countries selected operate differently in terms of long-term care and welfare systems (Verbeek et al. 2012, Hallberg et al. 2013). A baseline assessment (between November 2010–April 2012) and follow-up measurement after 3 months were conducted. The study design is described in further detail elsewhere (Verbeek et al. 2012).

Participants and sampling

The RTPC project focused on a specific target group: informal caregivers of PwD who were on the margins of care. ‘Margins of care’ refer to those PwD who are at the point when home care may become insufficient or inadequate and admission to ILTC might be triggered. Professional caregivers were asked to refer eligible PwD in their care who they deemed at risk of admission to an ILTC facility within 3–6 months. As reasons for admission may vary between countries no predefined additional criteria were used (Verbeek et al. 2012).

Two groups were included in this study:

Group one consisted of informal caregivers of PwD who were recently admitted (i.e. residing in the facility between 1–3 months) to an ILTC setting.
Group two included informal caregivers of PwD receiving formal care at home but deemed at risk of admission as judged by a professional caregiver.

Informal care was defined as care provided by spouses/partners, other members of the household, relatives, friends, neighbours or others; usually with an already existing social relationship with the person they provide care (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development 2005). In this study informal caregivers were included if they visited the PwD at least twice a month. Caregivers who provided care on a voluntary basis through an organization (such as a church group), or those who provided care as a career were not defined as an informal caregiver (Verbeek et al. 2012).

Data collection

Measures

Informal caregivers’ background variables included age, gender, marital status, relationship with the PwD, paid job, working hours per week, number of visits during the last 2 weeks, duration of visits and caregiving hours (both ADL and IADL) per month (data only available in the formal home care setting). Background information and assessment on informal caregiving hours were derived from the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument (Wimo et al. 1998). This instrument has been shown to be accurate in estimating the amount of informal care provision. Previous research supports the use of the RUD as a valid measure of caregiver time. Fair to good intra-class correlations have been reported ranging from 0·74–0·93 (Wimo et al. 2010).

Subjective burden of informal caregivers of PwD was assessed by means of the Zarit Burden Interview ((ZBI) (Zarit et al. 1980)) and the Caregiver Reaction Assessment ((CRA) (Given et al. 1992)). The total score of the 22 items ZBI ranges between 0–88. A higher score indicates greater perceived caregiver burden. (Zarit et al. 1980). Schreiner and colleagues used a cut-off score of 26 (Schreiner et al. 2006) to indicate presence of burden. The ZBI interview is a widely used and validated instrument for measuring the burden of caregivers. High levels of reliability and validity were reported by several studies. Cronbach's alpha's of 0·93 and intra-class correlation coefficients of 0·89 are reported for the ZBI (Seng et al. 2010). Although the CRA is not a burden measure per se, it is often used to assess burden. The CRA is a multidimensional tool that measures positive and negative components and consists of 24 items representing five domains: Caregiver's esteem (range 7–35) that reflects caregivers feelings of enjoyment and reward; Lack of family support (range 5–25) that measures to what extent caregivers feel supported by other family members; Impact on finances (range 3–15) that measures the impact on the caregivers financial situation; Impact on schedule (range 5–25) that measures to what extent caregiving interferes with the caregiver's activities; and Impact on health (range 4–20) which reflects the caregiver's capacity to provide care and health in relation to caregiving (Given et al. 1992). Burden scores can be calculated for the five different dimensions with a score of 1 representing no burden and a score of 5 high burden, except for the dimension of esteem where a higher score indicates lower subjective burden (Brouwer et al. 2004). The CRA was originally developed and validated for use in the USA (Given et al. 1992). Validated versions of the CRA are available in various languages including for example German (Stephan et al. 2013) and Dutch (Nijboer et al. 1999). Studies about the validity and/or reliability of the CRA in other countries show inconsistencies with regard to relevance of items and psychometrics (Malhotra et al. 2012). Moderate to adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha's varying between 0·62–0·83) have been reported for the CRA subscales (Nijboer et al. 1999).

HRQoL was measured with the EQ-5D. In addition, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to measure psychological aspects of quality of life. The EuroQoL (EQ-5D) consists of two components namely a description of the respondent's own health within five dimensions (EQ-5D-3L that ranges between −0·594 to −1) and a rating on a visual analogue thermometer (EQ-VAS that ranges between 0–100). A higher score on the EQ-5D-3L indicates better health-related quality of life, whereas a higher score in the EQ-VAS indicates higher self-rated health. The EuroQol has been translated into more than 100 languages and often applied in dementia care studies (e.g. Jönsson et al. 2006, Wolfs et al. 2008). The EuroQol has been extensively tested (Hounsome et al. 2011) on aspects of reliability and validity, with additional support coming from studies of the sensitivity and specificity of the measurement.

The GHQ-12 is widely used in many studies of well-being to assess psychological aspects of quality of life (psychological distress). Each of the 12 items of the GHQ is rated on a four-point scale. The GHQ can be scored in a variety of ways. For this study, the GHQ scoring method of 0-1-2-3 (Likert) was chosen (range total score 0–36). The scores were summed by adding all the items. A higher score indicates an increased likelihood of psychological distress (Brazier et al. 1993). Various thresholds of the GHQ-12, 0–36 scoring method have been reported previously (Piccinelli et al. 1993, Goldberg et al. 1997, Makowska et al. 2002). Goldberg and colleagues suggested a cut-off score of 11/12 as indicative of psychological distress in general (Goldberg et al. 1997). The GHQ-12 has been translated into many different languages (including e.g. German, French and Spanish). Validity and reliability of the tool has been investigated (e.g. Goldberg et al. 1997, Werneke et al. 2000) supporting the psychometric appropriateness of the GHQ-12.

Procedures

Eligible dyads of PwD and their informal caregivers were identified by the care organizations either through their administrators or the professional caregivers/care managers responsible for the care of the PwD. In each of the participating countries the contact person was assigned in these care organizations to contact informal caregivers to provide them with more information about the study.

Trained interviewers collected data during standardized interviews at baseline and 3 months later. All interviewers were professionals in health or social care or medical/nursing/social care students with practical experience and qualified to at least Bachelor degree level.

Ethical considerations

The Good Epidemiological Practice guidelines were followed. Each country obtained ethical approval from a country specific legal authority for research on human beings (e.g. an ethical committee specialized in medical or nursing science) to conduct the study in accordance with the national regulations and standards in participating countries (Verbeek et al. 2012). Before the start of the interview, informal caregivers who participated (mostly legal representatives) on a voluntary basis, provided informed consent. The PwD were asked to assent (providing their willingness to participate possibly without full understanding of the complexity and the whole aims of the study) (Slaughter et al. 2007).

Validity and reliability

To standardize data collection a manual was used including standardized operating procedures (SOP). This manual included: (1) preparation for the interviews, with information on selection of institutions and participants, instructions for interviewers and the study pilot; (2) the interview content, explaining the measurement assessments used during the interviews; and (3) data handling, describing procedures regarding handling and storage of data, data audit and data entry (Verbeek et al. 2012). All questionnaires were provided in English, however, validated official versions of most measures (e.g. EQ-5D) were available in almost all languages. When this was not the case, forward and backward translation procedures (Mapi Research Institute 2002) were used to translate into national languages. Translations had to be obtained for the GHQ-12 (Spanish and Estonian version, the ZBI (Estonian version) and the CRA (French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish and Estonian version). To enhance variability and external validity, a minimum of three different institutional long-term care facilities and three professional home care organizations were recruited per country.

Data analyses

The statistical analyses focused primarily on a descriptive comparison between the two groups (ILTC and HC). Descriptive analyses were conducted at the level of setting and country at baseline. Overall differences between settings were analysed using independent samples t-tests or chi-square tests. Differences across countries in settings were tested using anova for normally distributed continuous variables, Kruskal–Wallis for non-normally distributed continuous variables and chi-square tests for nominal and ordinal variables.

Changes in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life were analysed in a subgroup of informal caregivers of whom the PwD made the transition from home to an ILTC facility in the 3-month study period. Only informal caregivers who participated in both baseline and follow-up interviews were included. Differences between baseline and follow-up were analysed using paired samples t-tests or chi-square tests. To enhance cross-country comparison, the UK index of the EQ5D was used. All data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science for Windows (Version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Sample characteristics

The overall sample consisted of 2014 informal caregivers; 791 informal caregivers of PwD living in an ILTC facility and 1223 informal caregivers of PwD living at home. Overall, the informal caregivers (n = 2014) had a mean age of 63-year old; the majority was female (67%) and was married (76%). Approximately, 33% were spouses of the people with dementia and 40% had paid work (on average 35 hours per week).

Table 1 presents characteristics per setting and country. Background information of caregivers across countries in Table 1 shows that all sample characteristics differed across countries. Informal caregivers of PwD in ILTC facilities were younger (P < 0·001, mean difference −3·6 (independent samples t-test)) and this group contained fewer women caregivers (65·4% vs. 68·8%; P = 0·115 (chi-square test)), fewer married caregivers (74·4% vs. 77·4%; P = 0·209 (chi-square test)) and fewer spouse caregivers (18·4% vs. 41·7%; P < 0·001 (chi-square test)) compared with the home care group. In addition, informal caregivers of PwD in ILTC facilities visited the PwD less often (P = 0·001, mean difference −3·8 (independent samples t-test)) and stayed for less time (P = 0·001, mean difference −54·7 (independent samples t-test)).

Table 1. Informal caregivers background information baseline ILTC/HC

	Overall	England	Estonia	Finland	France	Germany	The Netherlands	Spain	Sweden	P value
Number of participants (n)
Total	2014	157	287	304	224	235	290	287	230
ILTC	791	76	115	122	49	119	113	113	84
HC	1223	81	172	182	175	116	177	174	146
Age, mean (sd)
ILTC	61·1 (11·1)	61·5 (9·7)	56·9 (12·3)	60·9 (10·0)	62·5 (9·7)	59·6 (11·4)	62·3 (10·7)	62·5 (10·8)	64·6 (11·8)	*** a
HC	64·7 (13·4)	65·4 (12·2)	56·8 (13·4)	65·4 (12·5)	63·2 (12·8)	62·7 (12·0)	66·3 (12·9)	66·6 (13·5)	72·0 (12·3)	*** a
Women (%)
ILTC	65·4	63·2	72·2	71·3	50·0	63·6	60·2	73·5	57·1	* b
HC	68·8	66·7	76·2	60·3	68·0	76·7	66·1	70·7	67·1	* b
Married (%)
ILTC	74·4	77·6	67·0	81·1	68·8	72·9	79·6	66·4	81·0	* b
HC	77·4	88·9	57·6	79·1	75·4	73·3	91·5	71·8	87·0	*** b
Spouse (%)
ILTC	18·4	14·5	12·2	13·9	18·8	17·8	21·2	23·0	27·4	** b
Home care	41·7	50·6	15·1	36·8	33·7	35·4	51·4	48·9	68·2	*** b
Paid job (%)
ILTC	46·2	43·4	67·0	48·4	29·2	42·4	46·4	31·0	52·4	*** b
HC	35·2	28·4	55·8	31·9	33·1	40·5	31·1	32·6	25·5	*** b
Working hours/week, mean (sd)
ILTC [n]	35·0 (12·5) [n = 363]	30·3 (14·9) [n = 33]	39·4 (6·9) [n = 76]	34·9 (10·0) [n = 59]	36·1 (4·5) [n = 14]	34·4 (14·4) [n = 50]	32·4 (13·6) [n = 51]	32·7 (16·0) [n = 35]	35·9 (14·1) [n = 44]	* a ** a
HC [n]	35·9 (1) [n = 440]	31·0 (11·9) [n = 23]	35·7 (9·1) [n = 96]	38·2 (8·5) [n = 58]	36·4 (15·2) [n = 58]	33·9 (12·3) [n = 47]	29·3 (13·7) [n = 53]	38·2 (20·7) [n = 56]	43·2 (31·6) [n = 47]
Number of visits last 2 weeks, mean (sd)
ILTC	6·6 (5·0)	6·5 (3·7)	3·3 (3·0)	4·6 (3·6)	7·7 (5·4)	6·9 (4·9)	7·2 (5·0)	11·4 (5·5)	5·5 (4·2)	*** a
HC (PwD lives not with IC) [n]c	10·4 (12·5) [n = 456]	9·5 (6·8) [n = 26]	8·5 (5·5) [n = 48]	6·1 (4·2) [n = 100]	13·7 (18·0) [n = 88]	17·6 (21·0) [n = 50]	9·8 (11·3) [n = 76]	12·3 (8·0) [n = 23]	7·7 (6·4) [n = 45]	*** a
Duration of visits in minutes, mean (sd)
ILTC	109·6 (93·8)	89·2 (72·2)	62·0 (45·0)	84·8 (49·9)	112·8 (64·2)	102·7 (52·1)	109·4 (56·0)	196·1 (166·9)	119·7 (96·0)	* a
HC (PwD lives not with IC) [n]c	164,3 (233·2) [n = 456]	235·7 (301·7) [n = 26]	170·8 (224·5) [n = 48]	96·2 (68·7) [n = 100]	177·0 (174·3) [n = 88]	188·5 (229·9) [n = 50]	210·7 (388·9) [n = 76]	230·0 (282·5) [n = 23]	105·9 (73·6) [n = 45]	* a
Caregiving hours per month (HC), mean (sd)c
ADL (PwD lives not with IC)	20·6 (51·2)	23·5 (35·0)	54·0 (108·8)	6·7 (17·3)	11·5 (30·8)	47·2 (55·0)	7·0 (15·4)	58·4 (79·5)	5·1 (12·9)	*** a
IADL (PwD lives not with IC)	35·9 (53·8) [n = 456]	36·7 (40·4) [n = 26]	60·1 (71·2) [n = 48]	25·2 (59·2) [n = 100]	34·4 (45·7) [n = 88]	52·3 (50·4) [n = 50]	24·4 (28·0) [n = 76]	74·5 (86·3) [n = 23]	17·4 (32·9) [n = 45]	*** a

*Significant at the 0·05 probability level; **Significant at the 0·01 probability level; ***Significant at the 0·001 probability level.
^a For testing significant differences between countries a one-way anova was used.
^b For testing significant differences between countries a Chi-square test was used.
^c Data presented for informal caregiver not living together with PwD.
ILTC, institutional long term care; HC, home care; sd, standard deviation; PwD, person with dementia, IC, informal caregiver.

Differences in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life between home care and institutional long-term care

In general, informal caregivers of PwD living at home reported higher levels of burden and less HRQoL compared with informal caregivers of PwD living in ILTC facilities (Table 2). Independent samples t-tests revealed that informal caregivers in home care experienced more burden (ZBI; (P < 0·001, mean difference 7·6)); experienced less positive effects of caregiving (CRA caregiver esteem; (P < 0·001, mean difference −0·9)); experienced less family support (CRA support; (P = 0·002, mean difference 0·7)); experienced more negative impact on the caregivers’ activities (CRA schedule; (P < 0·001, mean difference 2·7)); and experienced more negative impact on health (CRA health; (P = 0·234, mean difference 0·2)). However, regarding impact on finances, informal caregivers of PwD in ILTC experienced a more negative impact on finances (P = 0·002, mean difference −0·45)). Informal caregivers in home care experienced worse HRQoL (EQ-5D-3L; (P = 0·035, mean difference −0·02)); experienced worse self-rated health (P < 0·001, mean difference −3·5)) and more psychological distress (P = 0·064, mean difference 0·49)).

Table 2. Informal care-givers outcome measures baseline ILTC/HC

	Overall	England	Estonia	Finland	France	Germany	The Netherlands	Spain	Sweden	P value
Number of participants (n)
Total	2014	157	287	304	224	235	290	287	230
ILTC	791	76	115	122	49	119	113	113	84
HC	1223	81	172	182	175	116	177	174	146
Caregiver Burden (ZBI), mean (sd); range (0–88)b
ILTC	24·9 (15·2)	25·6 (14·2)	30·4 (16·5)	21·2 (12·5)	28·8 (17·4)	23·0 (13·2)	18·0 (12·2)	34·2 (16·5)	19·3 (12·2)	*** a
HC	32·4 (15·8)	36·7 (18·5)	39·7 (16·8)	28·5 (14·1)	32·1 (16·2)	31·7 (13·2)	26·5 (12·9)	35·1 (15·3)	31·6 (16·2)	*** a
Positive and negative reactions to caregiving (CRA)
Esteem (mean (sd); range (7–35))b
ILTC	26·5 (4·6)	27·2 (4·4)	22·7 (4·7)	25·6 (3·5)	27·3 (4·7)	26·5 (4·3)	27·6 (3·3)	27·5 (4·8)	29·1 (4·9)	*** a
HC	25·6 (5·1)	24·7 (6·0)	22·2 (4·7)	24·7 (4·4)	26·2 (5·5)	25·7 (4·4)	26·5 (4·0)	26·0 (4·6)	28·5 (5·2)	*** a
Support (mean (sd); range (5–25))b
ILTC	11·6 (4·7)	11·6 (4·5)	12·3 (4·4)	12·3 (3·5)	12·6 (6·6)	11·0 (4·4)	11·4 (4·5)	12·6 (4·9)	8·7 (4·4)	*** a
HC	12·3 (5·0)	13·0 (5·3)	13·0 (4·6)	12·4 (3·9)	13·0 (6·6)	11·2 (4·3)	11·5 (4·1)	14·0 (5·0)	9·8 (4·5)	*** a
Finance (mean (sd); range (3–15))b
ILTC	7·4 (3·2)	7·8 (2·9)	9·3 (3·1)	6·2 (1·9)	7·6 (3·6)	7·6 (3·1)	5·8 (1·8)	9·7 (3·6)	4·9 (2·6)	*** a
HC	6·9 (3·3)	6·6 (3·1)	10·3 (3·0)	5·9 (2·1)	6·7 (3·5)	6·5 (2·5)	5·8 (2·0)	8·5 (3·3)	4·7 (2·6)	*** a
Schedule (mean (sd); range (5–25))b
ILTC	13·0 (4·8)	14·6 (4·7)	13·3 (4·9)	11·7 (3·4)	12·2 (5·3)	12·0 (3·9)	13·2 (3·8)	16·2 (5·0)	10·4 (5·5)	*** a
HC	15·7 (5·3)	18·3 (4·2)	17·0 (4·9)	13·7 (4·9)	15·0 (6·5)	16·0 (4·6)	14·3 (4·6)	17·4 (4·3)	15·7 (6·1)	*** a
Health (mean (sd); range (4–20))b
ILTC	9·8 (3·9)	10·5 (3·8)	11·7 (4·3)	9·1 (2·8)	8·8 (4·7)	9·6 (3·6)	9·2 (3·0)	11·2 (3·9)	7·4 (4·1)	*** a
HC	10·0 (3·9)	11·1 (3·7)	12·5 (3·7)	9·2 (3·2)	8·8 (4·6)	10·0 (3·2)	9·5 (3·0)	10·8 (3·9)	8·7 (4·1)	*** a
Health-related quality of life of informal caregiver (EQ-5D-3L), mean (sd); range (−0·594 to −1)b
ILTC	0·78 (0·25)	0·80 (0·23)	0·82 (0·22)	0·80 (0·24)	0·76 (0·26)	0·77 (0·26)	0·81 (0·24)	0·73 (0·26)	0·77 (0·27)	NSa
HC	0·76 (0·26)	0·79 (0·27)	0·75 (0·25)	0·83 (0·22)	0·73 (0·32)	0·74 (0·24)	0·80 (0·22)	0·70 (0·31)	0·75 (0·25)	*** a
Health-related quality of life of informal caregiver (EQ-VAS), mean (sd); range (0–100)b
ILTC	72·0 (18·4)	72·2 (18·7)	71·3 (17·6)	77·8 (15·9)	69·2 (15·6)	71·9 (21·1)	75·3 (17·0)	63·2 (17·8)	73·5 (19·1)	*** a
HC	68·5 (18·7)	70·2 (18·9)	65·7 (18·6)	72·6 (15·1)	72·3 (18·9)	67·7 (17·4)	72·1 (15·9)	60·1 (21·8)	68·0 (19·0)	*** a
Psychological distress (GHQ-12), mean (sd); range (0–36)b
ILTC	12·5 (5·7)	11·2 (5·4)	13·1 (5·3)	10·9 (5·3)	13·0 (6·1)	13·5 (6·4)	11·2 (5·3)	15·0 (5·6)	11·7 (5·1)	*** a
HC	13·0 (5·8)	13·3 (6·2)	14·9 (6·8)	11·3 (4·8)	12·2 (5·9)	13·0 (4·7)	11·9 (4·9)	14·8 (5·7)	12·5 (5·9)	*** a

***Significant at the 0·001 probability level.
^a For testing significant differences between countries a one-way anova was used.
^b Underlined score is most favourable score.
ILTC, institutional long term care; HC, home care; sd, standard deviation.

Differences in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life between countries

Overall, informal caregivers in the home care sample scored 32·4 points on the ZBI indicating relatively high levels of burden (Table 2). The Netherlands had the lowest burden score (mean 26·5), while Estonia reported the highest burden score (mean 39·7), followed by England (mean 36·7). Informal caregivers in Sweden had the most favourable score compared with other countries on almost all CRA subscales (esteem, support, finance and health), indicating that Swedish informal caregivers felt most positive about caring for their relatives. In contrast, Estonian informal caregivers had the least favourable scores on three subscales (esteem, finance and health).

The results show that the mean score on the EQ-5D-3L was 0·76 in the home care sample. Scores on the EQ-5D-3L ranged from 0·70 (Spain)–0·83 (Finland) (Table 2). Caregiver's health indicated on the EQ-VAS was on average 68·5. Spanish informal caregivers scored the lowest (mean 60·1) of all countries. Overall the respondents in the home care setting scored 13 points on the GHQ-12. Using the suggested 11/12 threshold (Goldberg et al. 1997), only Finland (11·3) and Netherlands (11·9) scored below. The remaining countries had scores above the threshold (range 12·2 (France) to 14·8 (Spain)) indicating higher levels of psychological distress.

The average score on the ZBI for informal caregivers in the ILTC sample was 24·9, indicating low burden (Table 2). However, scores across countries ranged from 18·0–34·2. The Spanish informal caregivers reported the highest burden score of all countries, scoring on average almost ten points higher (mean 34·2) than the overall average score (24·9). According to the cut-off point of 26, informal caregivers in Estonia (30·4), France (28·8) and Spain (34·2) reported high burden. Sweden had the most favourable scores on all subscales of the CRA (caregiver's esteem, lack of family support, impact on finance, impact on schedule and impact on own health), indicating that Swedish informal caregivers were the most positive about caregiving for their relatives. While France and Spain had less favourable scores on the subscale Support, the Spanish informal caregivers had also less favourable scores on the subscales Finance and Schedule. Informal caregivers in Estonia demonstrated less favourable scores on the subscales Esteem, Health and Finance.

Overall, the mean score on the EQ-5D-3L in the ILTC sample was 0·78 and ranged from 0·73 (Spain)–0·82 (Estonia) (Table 2). Caregiver's health indicated on the EQ-VAS was on average 72·0. Spanish informal caregivers of PwD living in ILTC scored the lowest (mean 63·2) of all countries. Overall, the respondents from the ILTC setting scored just under 13 points on the GHQ-12. Thus, informal caregivers from all countries had a mean score just above the 11/12 threshold suggested by Goldberg and colleagues (Goldberg et al. 1997). Country differences ranged from 10·9 in Finland–15·0 in Spain, with a higher score indicating more psychological distress.

Change in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life (transition sample)

A total of 126 PwD made the transition from home to an ILTC facility 3 months after the baseline measurement. For 109 of these 126 PwD the same informal caregiver was present at both baseline and follow-up. These comprised 8 responses from informal caregivers in the UK, 19 from the Netherlands, five from Germany, 13 from Sweden, 18 from Finland, five from Estonia, 38 from France and three from Spain.

Overall, all outcome measures improved in the first 3 months after transition except for CRA's subscale finance. Table 3 shows a statistically significant change in caregiver burden of informal caregivers of PwD, who received professional home care at baseline and had moved to an ILTC facility within 3 months (mean difference 13, P < 0·001), meaning that informal caregivers experienced less burden after transition of the PwD. Only small differences were found regarding consequences of caregiving (CRA; subscales caregiver's esteem, impact on schedule, impact on finance and impact on health). No significant overall changes in health-related quality of life of informal caregivers were reported after transition (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS). Psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12 decreased significantly after transition (mean difference 2·3, P < 0·001).

Table 3. Changes in informal caregiver's outcome measures after transition of PwD from HC to ILTC (Transition sample (n = 109))

	Baseline (HC)	Follow-up (ILTC)	P value
Caregiver burden
ZBI; mean (sd)	35·4 (16·4)	22·4 (16·6)	≤0·001a
CRA esteem; mean (sd)	25·0 (5·7)	25·8 (4·6)	0·023a
CRA support; mean (sd)	12·0 (5·0)	11·9 (5·3)	0·726a
CRA finance; mean (sd)	6·4 (3·2)	7·3 (3·6)	0·001a
CRA schedule; mean (sd)	15·6 (6·2)	12·2 (5·7)	≤0·001a
CRA health; mean (sd)	10·4 (4·8)	9·6 (4·5)	0·013a
HRQoL
EQ-5D-3L; mean (sd)	0·77 (0·3)	0·77 (0·3)	0·875a
EQ-VAS; mean (sd)	70·1 (17·5)	70·5 (19·1)	0·749a
GHQ-12; mean (sd)	14·2 (6·6)	12·0 (5·8)	≤0·001a

^a For testing differences between baseline and follow-up paired samples t-test was used.
HC, home care; ILTC, institutional long-term care; sd, standard deviation; ZBI, Zarit burden interview; CRA, caregiver reaction assessment scale; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; GHQ-12, general health questionnaire 12.

Discussion

This study showed that there were considerable differences between settings (HC vs. ILTC) and countries on burden and HRQoL in informal caregivers of PwD. Country differences showed a pattern of eastern and southern European countries expressing more burden and lower HRQoL. Lower HRQoL and higher levels of burden were expressed by informal caregivers of PwD living at home in comparison to the caregivers of recently institutionalised PwD in all participating European countries. Taking care of PwD at home seems to impose higher demands on informal caregivers. This finding was confirmed by a consistent decrease in burden and psychological distress in the subsample of informal caregivers of PwD who made the transition to an ILTC facility during the 3-month study period.

Although in this study, ILTC placement seemed to have a positive impact on informal caregivers’ experienced burden and HRQoL, previous studies have debated about the course of burden and HRQoL of informal caregivers after transition (e.g. Matsuda et al. 1997, Grasel 2002, Schulz et al. 2004, Mausbach et al. 2007, Gaugler et al. 2008, 2010, Sury et al. 2013). The course of burden might relate to the course of transition. In the period just prior to transition, burden might be increased because of higher care demands (Gaugler et al. 2009). In this study, this could have contributed to the subsequent decrease in the 3 months following admission.

Mild-to-moderate levels of burden were reported by informal caregivers in almost all countries in both settings. Overall, informal caregivers in Estonia and Spain experienced more burden compared with other countries. The finding that caregiver burden was higher and HRQoL was lower in eastern and southern European countries is consistent with a previous study that investigated caregiver experiences across Europe (Vellas et al. 2012). Without any doubt, the role of informal caregivers differs between countries, which could explain this country variation. Informal caregiver demands are known to be lower in the Netherlands and Sweden in comparison to countries such as Estonia and Spain. This is also emphasized by the hours of care spent per month by the informal caregiver in our current study (ADL hours (mean 20·6; range 5·1–35·9) and IADL hours (mean 35·9; range 17·4–74·5). These hours varied widely between countries. A recent study by Wimo and colleagues comparing studies on the time informal caregivers spent assisting with ADL and IADL, showed that on average caregiver spent 2·0 hours per day (range 1·1–3·0) on ADL and IADL assistance (Wimo et al. 2013) which is more than in this study. Informal caregivers who reported low burden lived in countries such as Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands that also reported a limited amount of objective caregiving hours per month. Not only does the informal caregiver role differ but also available care and support systems vary enormously between countries involved in this European study. Greater availability of formal care services and more heavy reliance on the social security system in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden (Triantafillou et al. 2010), may account for variation in the outcomes of caregiver burden and HRQoL.

Furthermore, it needs to be acknowledged that country variation in this study could also relate to sampling differences. Informal caregivers differed in terms of age, gender, work status and their relationship with the PwD. Such factors, the literature suggests, may influence caregiver's experiences negatively (Schulz et al. 2004, Varona et al. 2007, Mioshi et al. 2013). In our study, the more burdened Estonian caregivers of PwD living at home were overall younger and more often children of the PwD. A study by Andren and Elmstahl also detected higher burden in younger caregivers (Andren & Elmstahl 2007). In addition, previous studies reported higher levels of burden in child–parent relations compared with spouses (Varona et al. 2007), which may relate to the higher levels of burden reported in Estonian informal caregivers in this study.

Although levels of caregiver burden and HRQoL varied considerably, there was a stable pattern showing lower levels of burden and higher HRQoL in caregivers of recently institutionalised PwD. Previous studies on caregiver burden supports this finding (Zarit & Whitlatch 1992, Gaugler et al. 2010). Research by Zarit and Whitlack showed an improvement in caregivers’ feeling of tension after admission of their relative (Zarit & Whitlatch 1992). However overall it should be mentioned that levels of caregiver burden were still relatively low to moderate in comparison to other previous published data (Meiland et al. 2001, Yurtsever et al. 2013).

Limitations

In interpreting the findings, it should be pointed out that the sample in this study included a specific group of caregivers, namely caregivers of PwD at the ‘margins of care’ when home care may become insufficient and admission to an ILTC facility might be needed. Therefore, the informal caregivers in this study were caregiving for a considerable period and may not represent all informal caregivers of PwD. The strength of the study lies in the large amount of descriptive data gathered using valid measures highlighting interesting contrasts between countries and settings. However, only a limited number of PwD were admitted to ILTC in the 3 month follow-up period (n = 109) and numbers varied extensively between countries. Due to the small sample sizes in each country, it was impossible to perform further country-specific analyses in this subsample. Previous studies have suggested that the length of the caregiving relationship relates to the amount of caregivers burden (Brodaty & Donkin 2009). In this study, no information was collected about the duration of caregiving. The 3 month study period is also relatively short. To investigate further changes in caregivers’ HRQoL and burden, measurement over a longer follow-up period would be warranted.

Conclusion

On the basis of this study, we conclude that across countries the perceived level of burden and HRQoL is lower in caregivers of PwD who reside in ILTC. Transition to ILTC seems helpful to reduce caregiver strain and may lead to a reduction in burden. Given the current policy that encourages people to stay at home as long as possible and that many caregivers want to continue caring for as long as possible, optimal provision of home health care must be achieved to support informal caregivers and the PwD. This is only achievable with a dual aim of optimizing well-being and minimizing stress in the PwD and their informal caregivers. A balanced approach is needed. Policy makers and European governments should be committed to assure accessible home healthcare support services for PwD and their informal caregivers. Policy makers and care providers should look beyond the PwD solely and include informal caregivers as full partners in the process of care. Interventions need to be developed that are specifically designed to reduce burden in caregivers of PwD living at home. Nurses play an important role in assessing PwD and informal caregivers needs and applying available interventions to prevent or reduce caregiver burden. If the PwD is living at home, nurses are often the key contact to the outside world. Nurses can provide guidance to informal caregivers by providing information regarding the dementia caregiving process. Nurses can optimize care by enhancing appropriate support tailored to the informal caregivers specific needs such as support groups, case management and availability of respite care. Offering optimal support will improve outcomes for both the caregiver and the PwD.

Funding

The RightTimePlaceCare study is supported by a grant from the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (project 242153).

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s).

Author contributions

All authors have agreed on the final version and meet at least one of the following criteria [recommended by the ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html)]:

substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data;
drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

Appendix 1 The RightTimePlaceCare Consortium partners are as follows:

Coordinator

University of Witten/Herdecke (DE): Gabriele Meyer PhD, RN, professor (scientific coordinator, WP 1 leader), Astrid Stephan MScN, RN, Anna Renom Guiteras, geriatrician, Dirk Sauerland Dr.rer.pol., professor (WP 4 & 6 leader), Dr Ansgar Wübker, Patrick Bremer dipl. oec.

Consortium members

Maastricht University (NL): Jan P.H. Hamers, PhD, RN, professor (WP 3 leader); Basema Afram, MSc; Hanneke C. Beerens, MSc, RN; Michel H.C. Bleijlevens, PhD, PT; Hilde Verbeek, PhD; Sandra M.G. Zwakhalen, PhD, RN; Dirk Ruwaard, MD, PhD, professor. Lund University (SE): Ingalill Rahm Hallberg, professor (WP 2 leader); Ulla Melin Emilsson, professor; Staffan Karlsson, PhD, Christina Bokberg, MSc, Connie Lethin, MSc.

University of Manchester (UK): David Challis, professor (WP5 leader); Caroline Sutcliffe MSc; Dr David Jolley; Sue Tucker, MSc, RN; Dr Ian Bowns; Brenda Roe, professor; Alistair Burns, professor.

University of Turku (FI): Helena Leino-Kilpi, PhD, RN, professor; Jaana Koskenniemi, MNSc, RN, researcher; Riitta Suhonen, PhD, RN, professor; Matti Viitanen, MD, PhD, professor; Seija Arve, PhD, RN, docent; Minna Stolt, PhD, podiatrist; Maija Hupli, PhD, RN.

University of Tartu (EE): Kai Saks, MD, PhD, professor (WP 5 leader); Ene-Margit Tiit, PhD, professor; Jelena Leibur, MD, MBA; Katrin Raamat, MA; Angelika Armolik, MA; Teija Tuula Marjatta Toivari, MA, RN.

Fundació Privada Clinic per la Recerca Biomedica, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (ES): Adelaida Zabalegui PhD, RN (WP 5 leader); Montserrat Navarro PhD, RN; Esther Cabrera PhD, RN (Tecnocampus Mataró), Ester Risco MNSc, RN; Carme Alvira MScN, RN; Marta Farre MScN, RN; Susana Miguel MScN, RN.

Gerontôpole, University of Toulouse (FR): Dr Maria Soto; Agathe Milhet; Dr Sandrine Sourdet; Sophie Gillette; Bruno Vellas, professor.

References

Almberg B., Grafstrom M., Krichbaum K. & Winblad B. (2000) The interplay of institution and family caregiving: relations between patient hassles, nursing home hassles and care-givers’ burnout. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 15(10), 931–939.
10.1002/1099-1166(200010)15:10<931::AID-GPS219>3.0.CO;2-L
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Andren S. & Elmstahl S. (2007) Relationships between income, subjective health and caregiver burden in care-givers of people with dementia in group living care: a cross-sectional community-based study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44(3), 435–446.
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.016
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Argimon J.M., Limon E., Vila J. & Cabezas C. (2005) Health-related quality-of-life of care-givers as a predictor of nursing-home placement of patients with dementia. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 19(1), 41–44.
10.1097/01.wad.0000160343.96562.8e
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bond M.J., Clark M.S. & Davies S. (2003) The quality of life of spouse dementia care-givers: changes associated with yielding to formal care and widowhood. Social Science & Medicine 57(12), 2385–2395.
10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00133-3
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Brazier J., Jones N. & Kind P. (1993) Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research 2(3), 169–180.
10.1007/BF00435221
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Brodaty H. & Donkin M. (2009) Family care-givers of people with dementia. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 11(2), 217–228.
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brouwer W.B., van Exel N.J., van de Berg B., Dinant H.J., Koopmanschap M.A. & van den Bos G.A. (2004) Burden of caregiving: evidence of objective burden, subjective burden and quality of life impacts on informal care-givers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 51(4), 570–577.
10.1002/art.20528
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bullock R. (2004) The needs of the caregiver in the long-term treatment of Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 18(Suppl 1), S17–S23.
10.1097/01.wad.0000127493.65032.9a
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Caron C.D., Ducharme F. & Griffith J. (2006) Deciding on institutionalization for a relative with dementia: the most difficult decision for care-givers. Canadian Journal on Aging = La revue canadienne du vieillissement 25(2), 193–205.
10.1353/cja.2006.0033
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Davies C.H. & Nolan M.F. (2003) Making the best of things: relatives experiences of decisions about care-home entry. Ageing and Society 23, 429–450.
10.1017/S0144686X03001259
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Elmstahl S., Ingvad B. & Annerstedt L. (1998) Family caregiving in dementia: prediction of caregiver burden 12 months after relocation to group-living care. International Psychogeriatrics 10(2), 127–146.
10.1017/S1041610298005249
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2005) Long-term Care in the European Union. European Commission, Brussel, Belgium.
Google Scholar
Gaugler J.E., Roth D.L., Haley W.E. & Mittelman M.S. (2008) Can counseling and support reduce burden and depressive symptoms in care-givers of people with Alzheimer's disease during the transition to institutionalization? Results from the New York University caregiver intervention study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 56(3), 421–428.
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01593.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gaugler J.E., Mittelman M.S., Hepburn K. & Newcomer R. (2009) Predictors of change in caregiver burden and depressive symptoms following nursing home admission. Psychology and Aging 24(2), 385–396.
10.1037/a0016052
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gaugler J.E., Mittelman M.S., Hepburn K. & Newcomer R. (2010) Clinically significant changes in burden and depression among dementia care-givers following nursing home admission. BMC Medicine 8, 85.
10.1186/1741-7015-8-85
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Given C.W., Given B., Stommel M., Collins C., King S. & Franklin S. (1992) The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for care-givers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Research in Nursing & Health 15(4), 271–283.
10.1002/nur.4770150406
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Goldberg D.P., Gater R., Sartorius N., Ustun T.B., Piccinelli M., Gureje O. & Rutter C. (1997) The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine 27(1), 191–197.
10.1017/S0033291796004242
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Grasel E. (2002) When home care ends - Changes in the physical health of informal care-givers caring for dementia patients: a longitudinal study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 50(5), 843–849.
10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50209.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gustavsson A., Jonsson L., Rapp T., Reynish E., Ousset P.J., Andrieu S., Cantet C., Winblad B., Vellas B. & Wimo A. (2010) Differences in resource use and costs of dementia care between European countries: baseline data from the ICTUS study. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 14(8), 648–654.
10.1007/s12603-010-0311-7
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hallberg I., Leino-Kilpi H., Meyer G., Raamat K., Martin M., Sutcliffe C., Zabalegui A., Zwakhalen S. & Karlsson S. (2013) Dementia Care in eight European countries: developing a mapping system to explore systems. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 45(4), 412–424.
10.1111/jnu.12046
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hounsome N., Orrell M. & Edwards R.T. (2011) EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value in Health 14, 390e.
10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
IMSERSO (2005) Cuidados a las personas mayores en los hogares españoles. El entorno familiar. Imserso, Madrid.
Google Scholar
Jönsson L., Jönhagen M.E., Kilander L., Soininen H., Hallikainen M., Waldemar G., Nygaard H., Andreasen N., Winblad B. & Wimo A. (2006) Determinants of costs of care for patients with Alzheimer's disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 21, 449–459.
10.1002/gps.1489
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Lieberman M.A. & Fisher L. (2001) The effects of nursing home placement on family care-givers of patients with Alzheimer's disease. The Gerontologist 41(6), 819–826.
10.1093/geront/41.6.819
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Makowska Z., Merecz D., Moscicka A. & Kolasa W. (2002) The validity of general health questionnaires, GHQ-12 and GHQ-28, in mental health studies of working people. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 15(4), 353–362.
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Malhotra R., Chan A., Malhotra C. & Ostbye T. (2012) Validity and reliability of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment scale among primary informal care-givers for older persons in Singapore. Aging & Mental Health 16, 1004–1015.
10.1080/13607863.2012.702728
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mapi Research Institute (2002) Linguistic Validation of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure. Mapi Research Institute, Lyon.
Google Scholar
Markowitz J.S., Gutterman E.M., Sadik K. & Papadopoulos G. (2003) Health-related quality of life for care-givers of patients with Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 17(4), 209–214.
10.1097/00002093-200310000-00003
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Matsuda O., Hasebe N., Ikehara K., Futatsuya M. & Akahane N. (1997) Longitudinal study of the mental health of care-givers caring for elderly patients with dementia: effect of institutional placement on mental health. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 51(5), 289–293.
10.1111/j.1440-1819.1997.tb03200.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mausbach B.T., Aschbacher K., von Patterson T.L., Kanel R., Dimsdale J.E., Mills P.J., Ancoli-Israel S. & Grant I. (2007) Effects of placement and bereavement on psychological well-being and cardiovascular risk in Alzheimer's care-givers: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 62(4), 439–445.
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.10.011
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Meiland F.J., Danse J.A., Wendte J.F., Klazinga N.S. & Gunning-Schepers L.J. (2001) Caring for relatives with dementia–caregiver experiences of relatives of patients on the waiting list for admission to a psychogeriatric nursing home in The Netherlands. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 29(2), 113–121.
10.1177/14034948010290020801
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (2007) Health and Medical Care in Sweden. Fact sheet no 16. Government Offices of Sweden, Stockholm.
Google Scholar
Mioshi E., Foxe D., Leslie F., Savage S., Hsieh S., Miller L., Hodges J.R. & Piguet O. (2013) The impact of dementia severity on caregiver burden in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 27(1), 68–73.
10.1097/WAD.0b013e318247a0bc
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Nijboer C., Triemstra M., Tempelaar R., Sanderman R. & Van den Bos G. (1999) Measuring both negative and positive reactions to giving care to cancer patients: psychometric qualities of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA). Social Science and Medicine 48, 1259–1270.
10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00426-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Nikzad-Terhune K.A., Anderson K.A., Newcomer R. & Gaugler J.E. (2010) Do trajectories of at-home dementia caregiving account for burden after nursing home placement? A growth curve analysis. Social Work in Health Care 49(8), 734–752.
10.1080/00981381003635296
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Paat G. & Merilain M. (2010) The Long-term Care System for the Elderly in Estonia. Retrieved from http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/sites/default/files/ENEPRI%20_ANCIEN_%20RR%20No%2075%20Estonia%20-%20Edited%20final.pdf on 8 March 2014.
Google Scholar
Pearlin L.I., Mullan J.T., Semple S.J. & Skaff M.M. (1990) Caregiving and the stress process: an overview of concepts and their measures. The Gerontologist 30(5), 583–594.
10.1093/geront/30.5.583
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Piccinelli M., Bisoffi G., Bon M.G., Cunico L. & Tansella M. (1993) Validity and test-retest reliability of the Italian version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire in general practice: a comparison between three scoring methods. Comprehensive Psychiatry 34(3), 198–205.
10.1016/0010-440X(93)90048-9
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Riedel M. & Kraus M. (2011) Informal Care Provision in Europe: Regulations and Profile of Providers. ENEPRI Research Report. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/32970/1/RR_No_96__ANCIEN__Regulation_and_Profile_of_Providers_of_Informal_Care.pdf. on 8 March 2014.
Google Scholar
Schreiner A.S., Morimoto T., Arai Y. & Zarit S. (2006) Assessing family caregiver's mental health using a statistically derived cut-off score for the Zarit Burden Interview. Aging & Mental Health 10(2), 107–111.
10.1080/13607860500312142
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schulz R., Belle S.H., Czaja S.J., McGinnis K.A., Stevens A. & Zhang S. (2004) Long-term care placement of dementia patients and caregiver health and well-being. JAMA 292(8), 961–967.
10.1001/jama.292.8.961
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Seng B.K., Luo N., Ng W.Y., Lim J., Chionh H.L., Goh J. & Yap P. (2010) Validity and reliability of the Zarit Burden interview in assessing caregiving burden. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 39, 758–763.
10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V39N10p758
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Serrano-Aguilar P.G., Lopez-Bastida J. & Yanes-Lopez V. (2006) Impact on health-related quality of life and perceived burden of informal care-givers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Neuroepidemiology 27(3), 136–142.
10.1159/000095760
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Slaughter S., Cole D., Jennings E. & Reimer M.A. (2007) Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nursing Ethics 14, 27–40.
10.1177/0969733007071355
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Stephan A., Mayer H., Renom Guiteras A. & Meyer G. (2013) Validity, reliability and feasibility of the German version of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment scale (G-CRA): a validation study. International Psychogeriatrics 25(10), 1621–1628.
10.1017/S1041610213001178
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Strang V.R., Koop P.M., Dupuis-Blanchard S., Nordstrom M. & Thompson B. (2006) Family care-givers and transition to long-term care. Clinical Nursing Research 15(1), 27–45.
10.1177/1054773805282356
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sury L., Burns K. & Brodaty H. (2013) Moving in: adjustment of people living with dementia going into a nursing home and their families. International Psychogeriatrics 25(6), 867–876.
10.1017/S1041610213000057
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) The OECD Health Project. Long-term Care for Older People. OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.euro.centre.org/data/1216815268_61772.pdf on 8 March 2014.
Google Scholar
Tornatore J.B. & Grant L.A. (2002) Burden among family care-givers of persons with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. The Gerontologist 42(4), 497–506.
10.1093/geront/42.4.497
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Tornatore J.B. & Grant L.A. (2004) Family caregiver satisfaction with the nursing home after placement of a relative with dementia. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 59(2), S80–S88.
10.1093/geronb/59.2.S80
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Torti F.M. Jr, Gwyther L.P., Reed S.D., Friedman J.Y. & Schulman K.A. (2004) A multinational review of recent trends and reports in dementia caregiver burden. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 18(2), 99–109.
10.1097/01.wad.0000126902.37908.b2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Triantafillou J., Naiditch M., Repkova K., Stiehr K., Carretero S. & Emilsson T. (2010) Informal Care in the Long-term Care System: European Overview Paper. Interlinks, EU Report Seventh Framework Programme, Athens/Vienna. Retrieved from http://interlinks.euro.centre.org/sites/default/files/WP5_Overview_FINAL_04_11.pdf on 8 March 2014.
Google Scholar
Varona R., Saito T., Takahashi M. & Kai I. (2007) Caregiving in the Philippines: a quantitative survey on adult-child care-givers’ perceptions of burden, stressors and social support. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 45(1), 27–41.
10.1016/j.archger.2006.07.007
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Vellas B., Hausner L., Frolich L., Cantet C., Gardette V., Reynish E., Gillette S., Aguera-Morales E., Auriacombe S., Boada M., Bullock R., Byrne J., Camus V., Cherubini A., Eriksdotter-Jonhagen M., Frisoni G.B., Hasselbalch S., Jones R.W., Martinez-Lage P., Rikkert M.O., Tsolaki M., Ousset P.J., Pasquier F., Ribera-Casado J.M., Rigaud A.S., Robert P., Rodriguez G., Salmon E., Salva A., Scheltens P., Schneider A., Sinclair A., Spiru L., Touchon J., Zekry D., Winblad B. & Andrieu S. (2012) Progression of Alzheimer disease in Europe: data from the European ICTUS study. Current Alzheimer Research 9(8), 902–912.
10.2174/156720512803251066
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Verbeek H., Meyer G., Leino-Kilpi H., Zabalegui A., Hallberg I.R., Saks K., Soto M.E., Challis D., Sauerland D. & Hamers J.P. (2012) A European study investigating patterns of transition from home care towards institutional dementia care: the protocol of a RightTimePlaceCare study. BMC Public Health 12, 68.
10.1186/1471-2458-12-68
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Werneke U., Goldberg D.P., Yalcin I. & Üstün B.T. (2000) The stability of the factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine 30, 823–829.
10.1017/S0033291799002287
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Wimo A., Wetterholm A.L., Mastey V. & Winblad B. (1998) Evaluation of the resource utilization and caregiver time in Anti-dementia drug trials-a quantitative battery. In The Health Economics of Dementia ( A.J.B. Wimo, G. Karlsson & B. Winblad, eds), John Wiley and Sons, London, pp. 465–499.
Google Scholar
Wimo A., Jonsson L. & Zbrozek A. (2010) The Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument is valid for assessing informal care time in community-living patients with dementia. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 14(8), 685–690.
10.1007/s12603-010-0316-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Wimo A., Gustavsson A., Jonsson L., Winblad B., Hsu M.A. & Gannon B. (2013) Application of Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument in a global setting. Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 9(4), 429–435 e17.
10.1016/j.jalz.2012.06.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Wolfs C.A., Kessels A., Dirksen C.D., Severens J.L. & Verhey F.R. (2008) Integrated multidisciplinary diagnostic approach for dementia care: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 192, 300–305.
10.1192/bjp.bp.107.035204
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Yeh S.H., Johnson M.A. & Wang S.T. (2002) The changes in caregiver burden following nursing home placement. International journal of nursing studies 39(6), 591–600.
10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00055-4
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Yurtsever S., Özge A., Kara A., Yandım A., Kalav S. & Yeşil P. (2013) The relationship between care burden and social support in Turkish Alzheimer patients family care-givers: cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 3(9), 1–12.
10.5430/jnep.v3n9p1
Google Scholar
Zarit S.H. & Whitlatch C.J. (1992) Institutional placement – phases of the transition. The Gerontologist 32(5), 665–672.
10.1093/geront/32.5.665
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Zarit S.H., Reever K.E. & Bach-Peterson J. (1980) Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist 20(6), 649–655.
10.1093/geront/20.6.649
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume71, Issue6

June 2015

Pages 1378-1391

Changes in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life of informal caregivers of older people with Dementia: evidence from the European RightTimePlaceCare prospective cohort study

Abstract

Aims

Background

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Why is this research needed?

What are the key findings?

How should the findings be used to influence policy, practice, policy, research or education?

Introduction

Background

The study

Aims

Design

Participants and sampling

Data collection

Measures

Procedures

Ethical considerations

Validity and reliability

Data analyses

Results

Sample characteristics

Differences in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life between home care and institutional long-term care

Differences in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life between countries

Change in caregiver burden and health-related quality of life (transition sample)

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Funding

Conflict of interest

Author contributions

Appendix 1

The RightTimePlaceCare Consortium partners are as follows:

Coordinator

Consortium members

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information