Cited by 140Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

How Does Caregiver Well-Being Relate to Perceived Quality of Care in Patients With Cancer? Exploring Associations and Pathways

Open access
Litzelman, Kristin, Kent, Erin E., Mollica, Michelle, Rowland, Julia H.·2016·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Perceived quality of care (QOC) is an increasingly important metric of care quality and can be affected by such factors among patients with cancer as quality of life and physician trust. This study sought to evaluate whether informal caregiver well-being was also associated with perceived QOC among patients with cancer and assessed potential pathways that link these factors. Methods: This study used data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) consortium. Patients with lung and colorectal cancer enrolled in CanCORS (N = 689) nominated an informal caregiver to participate in a caregiving survey. Both groups self-reported sociodemographic, psychosocial, and caregiving characteristics; cancer characteristics were obtained from the CanCORS core data set. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between caregiver psychosocial factors and subsequent patient-perceived QOC, controlling for earlier patient-perceived QOC and covariates. Secondary analysis examined potential pathways that link these factors. Results: Patients whose informal caregiver had higher levels of depressive symptoms were significantly more likely to report fair or poor QOC (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13). When caregivers reported fair or poor self-rated health, patients were more than three times more likely to report fair or poor perceived QOC (odds ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.76 to 9.55). Controlling for patient psychosocial factors and physician communication and coordination of medical care reduced the effect size and/or statistical significance of these relationships. Conclusion: Informal caregivers are an important part of the care team and their well-being is associated with patient-perceived QOC. Engaging informal cancer caregivers as part of the care team and conducting ongoing risk stratification screening and intervention to optimize their health may improve patient-reported outcomes and QOC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2016.67.3434

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Caring for advanced cancer patients might have a negative impact on one's health.

    “Studies have shown that caring for advanced cancer patients might have a negative impact on one's health [1, 10, 11].”

    From Preparedness, resilience and unmet needs of informal caregivers of advanced cancer patients in a Regional Mission Hospital in Kenya: Qualitative Study (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that patient depressive symptoms were associated with caregivers’ mental and physical health-related quality of life, so the paper supports a possible link between a patient’s condition and caregiver health. It does not establish that caregiving itself negatively affects health, or report that finding specifically for caregivers of advanced cancer patients. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services . 2015 National impact assessment of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quality measures report. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/qualitymeasures/downloads/2015-national-impact-assessment-report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  2. [15]National Alliance for Caregiving . Caregiving in the U.S. 2015. http://www.caregiving.org/caregiving2015/ [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Litzelman, K., Kent, E. E., Mollica, M., & Rowland, J. H.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Litzelman, Kristin
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2016-10-10
Volume
34
Issue
29
Pages
3554-3561
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2514499626
Cited by
140
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (CRS 02-164)
  • Australian Government
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ca093344-08)
  • National Cancer Institute (CRS 02-164, U01CA093339, U01CA093326, U01-CA093344, U01CA093348, U01CA093329, U01CA093332, U01CA093324)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Keywords
informal caregivers, caregiver well-being, perceived quality of care, cancer patients, depressive symptoms, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, patient-reported outcomes, trust in physicians, physician communication, care coordination
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depression, Female, Health Status, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Quality of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Colorectal Neoplasms, Caregivers

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