CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 229Nursing care and researchStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: a comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden

van Exel, N Job A, op Reimer, Wilma JM Scholte, Brouwer, Werner BF, van den Berg, Bernard, Koopmanschap, Marc A, van den Bos, Geertrudis AM·2004·Clinical Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1191/0269215504cr723oa
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To compare the feasibility, convergent and clinical validity of three commonly used burden scales: Caregiver Strain Index (CSI), Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) and Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SCQ), with a self-developed single question on self-rated burden (SRB). Subjects: Stroke patients receiving support from an informal caregiver ( n=148) and their caregivers were followed up to six months after stroke. Intervention: Feasibility was assessed with several measures of missing values. Convergent validity was assessed on the basis of the correlation patterns between the burden scales, and clinical validity through evaluation of expected associations between levels of burden and explanatory patients' and caregivers' characteristics. Results: Missing values were less often observed on CSI and SRB than SCQ and CRA. Significant correlation coefficients ( p<0.05) could be demonstrated between all burden scales, except for one subscale of CRA. Evidence for clinical validity was strongest for CSI and SRB, based on associations between higher burden scores and patients' disability, and patients' and caregivers' poor level of health-related quality of life (all p<0.05). Conclusions: A concise and simple measure would facilitate early detection of caregivers at risk in clinical practice and research. CSI and SRB are more feasible and at least as valid instruments for assessment of caregiver burden in stroke than the longer and more complex SCQ and CRA. SRB could be used for quick screening of caregivers at risk. CSI is indicated for further diagnosis of the burden of informal caregivers.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/0269215504cr723oa

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Huijsman R, Beroerte, beroering en borging in de keten: Results of the EDISSE evaluation of three regional experiments with stroke services
  2. Veenhoven, R, 1997, Rev Québécoise Psychol, 18, 29
  3. Mahoney FI, 1965, Md State Med J, 14, 61
  4. The EuroQol Group, 1999, Health Policy, 16, 199
  5. 10.1161/01.STR.28.3.507 · DOI
  6. Brugge C, 1999, Stroke, 20, 1517

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 229

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van Exel, N. J. A., op Reimer, W. J. S., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & van den Bos, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) and Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) and Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam and National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Department for Health Services Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven and Department of Social Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ORCID
Brouwer, Werner BF
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-03
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
203-214
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
DOI
10.1191/0269215504cr723oa
OpenAlex
W2158727937
Cited by
229
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
27.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
caregiver burden, informal caregivers, stroke, Caregiver Strain Index, Caregiver Reaction Assessment, scale validity, feasibility, health-related quality of life, stroke disability, caregiver screening
MeSH terms
Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Caregivers, Stroke

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