Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Validation of a model of family caregiver communication types and related caregiver outcomes

  • Elaine Wittenberg (a1), Kate Kravits (a1), Joy Goldsmith (a2), Betty Ferrell (a1) and Rebecca Fujinami (a1)...

Abstract

Objective:

Caring for the family is included as one of the eight domains of quality palliative care, calling attention to the importance of the family system and family communications about cancer during care and treatment of the disease. Previously, a model of family caregiver communication defined four caregiver communication types—Manager, Carrier, Partner, Lone—each with a unique communication pattern. The purpose of the present study was to extend the model of family caregiver communication in cancer care to further understand the impact of family communication burden on caregiving outcomes.

Method:

This mixed-method study employed fieldnotes from a family caregiver intervention focused on quality of life and self-reported caregiver communication items to identify a specific family caregiver type. Caregiver types were then analyzed using outcome measures on psychological distress, skills preparedness, family inventory of needs, and quality-of-life domains.

Results:

Corroboration between fieldnotes and self-reported communication for caregivers (n = 21, 16 women, mean age of 53 years) revealed a definitive classification of the four caregiver types (Manager = 6, Carrier = 5, Partner = 6, Lone = 4). Mean scores on self-reported communication items documented different communication patterns congruent with the theoretical framework of the model. Variation in caregiver outcomes measures confirmed the model of family caregiver communication types. Partner and Lone caregivers reported the lowest psychological distress, with Carrier caregivers feeling least prepared and Manager caregivers reporting the lowest physical quality of life.

Significance of results:

This study illustrates the impact of family communication on caregiving and increases our knowledge and understanding about the role of communication in caregiver burden. The research provides the first evidence-based validation for a family caregiver communication typology and its relationship to caregiver outcomes. Future research is needed to develop and test interventions that target specific caregiver types.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Elaine Wittenberg, City of Hope National Medical Center, Division of Nursing Research and Education, 1500 East Duarte Road, Popular Science Building 173, Duarte, California 91010. E-mail: ewittenberg@coh.org.

References

Hide All
Adelman, R.D., Tmanova, L.L., Delgado, D., et al. (2014). Caregiver burden: A clinical review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(10), 10521060.
Davis, L.L., Chestnutt, D., Molloy, M., et al. (2014). Adapters, strugglers, and case managers: A typology of spouse caregivers. Qualitative Health Research, 24(11), 14921500.
Family Caregiver Alliance (2015). Selected long-term care statistics. Available from https://http://www.caregiver.org/selected-long-term-care-statistics.
Ferrell, B.R., Ferrell, B.A., Rhiner, M., et al. (1991). Family factors influencing cancer pain management. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 67(Suppl. 2), S64S69.
Ferrell, B.R., Grant, M., Borneman, T., et al. (1999). Family caregiving in cancer pain management. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 2(2), 185195.
Fitzpatrick, M.A. (2004). Family communication patterns theory: Observations on its development and application. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3/4), 167179.
Fujinami, R., Sun, V., Zachariah, F., et al. (2015). Family caregivers' distress levels related to quality of life, burden, and preparedness. Psycho-Oncology, 24(1), 5462.
Goldsmith, J. (2015). Family communication goals and messages. In Oxford textbook of communication in palliative care. Wittenberg, E. et al. (eds.), pp. 114152. New York: Oxford Press.
Goldsmith, J., Wittenberg, E., Platt, C.S., et al. (2015). Family caregiver communication in oncology: Advancing a typology. Psycho-Oncology, June 4. doi: 10.1002/pon.3862. Epub ahead of print.
Grant, M., Sun, V., Fujinami, R., et al. (2013). Family caregiver burden, skills preparedness, and quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum, 40(4), 337346.
Hendriksen, E., Williams, E., Sporn, N., et al. (2015). Worried together: A qualitative study of shared anxiety in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and their family caregivers. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(4), 10351041.
Kim, H.H., Kim, S.Y., Kim, J.M., et al. (2015). Influence of caregiver personality on the burden of family caregivers of terminally ill cancer patients. Palliative & Supportive Care, 14(1), 512.
Koehly, L.M., Peters, J.A., Kenen, R., et al. (2009). Characteristics of health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families at risk of hereditary cancer: Implications for family health communication interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 22032209.
Kristjanson, L.J., Atwood, J. & Degner, L.F. (1995). Validity and reliability of the Family Inventory of Needs (FIN): Measuring the care needs of families of advanced cancer patients. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 3(2), 109126.
Litzelman, K, Barker, K, Puccetti, D, et al. (2013). Socioeconomic disparities in the quality of life in children with cancer or brain tumors: The mediating role of family factors. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 10811088.
Litzelman, K, Kent, K & Rowland, J. (2015). Social factors in informal cancer caregivers: The interrelationships among social stressors, relational quality, and family functioning in the CanCOR data set. Cancer, 122(2), 278286.
Mosher, C.E., Given, B. & Ostroff, J. (2015). Barriers to mental health service use among distressed family caregivers of lung cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer Care, 24, 5059.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2008). Distress: Treatment guidelines for patients, version 2. Available from http://www.asociatiapavel.ro/userfiles/NCCN%20Distress%20Guidelines.pdf.
National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (2013). Clinical practice guidelines for quality care, 3rd ed. Available from http://www.nationalconsensusproject.org.
Rusinak, R.L. & Murphy, J.F. (1995). Elderly spousal caregivers: Knowledge of cancer care, perceptions of preparedness, and coping strategies. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 21(3), 3341.
Schuler, T.A., Zaider, T.I., Li, Y., et al. (2014). Typology of perceived family functioning in an American sample of patients with advanced cancer. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 48(2), 281288.
Shin, D.W., Cho, J., Roter, D.L., et al. (2013). Preferences for and experiences of family involvement in cancer treatment decision-making: Patient–caregiver dyads study. Psycho-Oncology, 22(11), 26242631.
Tsilika, E, Parpa, E, Zgogianni, A, et al. (2015). Caregivers' attachment patterns and their interactions with cancer patients' patterns. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23, 8794.
Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Demiris, G., Oliver, D.P., et al. (2012 a). Stress variances among informal hospice caregivers. Qualitative Health Research, 22(8), 11141125.
Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Goldsmith, J., Demiris, G., et al. (2012 b). The impact of family communication patterns on hospice family caregivers: A new typology. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing, 14(1), 2533.
Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Goldsmith, J., Oliver, D.P., et al. (2012 c). Targeting communication interventions to decrease caregiver burden. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 28(4), 262270.
Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Kruse, R.L., Oliver, D.P., et al. (2014). Exploring the collective hospice caregiving experience. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 17(1), 5055.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Palliative & Supportive Care
  • ISSN: 1478-9515
  • EISSN: 1478-9523
  • URL: /core/journals/palliative-and-supportive-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed