Cited by 72Nursing care and researchPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesCancer survivorship and care

Relationship quality and burden among caregivers for late-stage cancer patients

Francis, Linda E., Worthington, Julie, Kypriotakis, Georgios, Rose, Julia H.·2010·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Objective This study explores how caregiver relationship quality with family, patient, and patient's health care provider (HCP) is associated with subjective caregiver burden during the early treatment phase for late-stage cancer.Method Burden and relationship quality were assessed in telephone interviews with family caregivers (FCGs) of advanced cancer patients. The five subscales of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment measured burden, while relationships were measured with the Family Relationship Index, the Family Inventory of Needs subscale of met needs, and a scale assessing family discord in cancer communication.Results Multiple linear regression analyses in SPSS (v16) of 420 FCGs showed that higher quality relationship with family was associated with lower burden in FCG abandonment, health, scheduling (p < 0.001) and finances (p < 0.01). Higher quality relationship with patients' HCPs was associated with lower burden in FCG abandonment (p < 0.05), health, and finances (p < 0.001). More discordant communication in patient relationship was associated with lower financial burden (p < 0.05). Relationship quality was not associated with caregiver self-esteem.Conclusions Findings demonstrate that caregiver relationship quality with family and with HCP are important factors in understanding caregiver burden during the early treatment phase of late-stage cancer care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-009-0765-5

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Francis, L. E., Worthington, J., Kypriotakis, G., & Rose, J. H.
Affiliations
  • MetroHealth (US)
  • East Tennessee State University (US)
Corresponding author
Francis, Linda E.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2009-11-08
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
1429-1436
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2112473728
Cited by
71
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 11
FWCI
14.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
  • EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01-CA10282)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
family caregivers, caregiver burden, relationship quality, late-stage cancer, family conflict, cancer communication, caregiver self-esteem, financial burden, caregiver health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Family Relations, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Neoplasms, Self Concept, Linear Models, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review