Role Of Socioeconomics, Psychological State, and Attitude Toward Care Giving on Quality of Life of Dependent Patients’ Caregivers in the Northeast of Thailand

All published articles of this journal are available on ScienceDirect.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Role Of Socioeconomics, Psychological State, and Attitude Toward Care Giving on Quality of Life of Dependent Patients’ Caregivers in the Northeast of Thailand

The Open Public Health Journal 23 Oct 2024 RESEARCH ARTICLE DOI: 10.2174/0118749445350867241013104905

Abstract

Background

Caring for patients with dependency is a burden on primary caregivers, which impacts them economically, socially, and psychologically. The perception of caregiving and the psychological state associated with it further contribute to these effects.

Objectives

This cross-sectional analytical study aimed to study the socioeconomic and caregiving burden factors associated with the Quality of Life (QOL) of dependent patients’ caregivers in the Northeastern region of Thailand.

Methodology

A total of 1,335 dependent patients’ caregivers aged 18–59 years in the Northeastern Region of Thailand were selected by multistage random sampling to respond to a self-administered structured questionnaire. The Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) was performed to identify socioeconomic and caregiving burden factors associated with QOL while controlling the effects of covariates, presenting Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).

Results

Among 1,335 dependent patients’ caregivers, more than half of them had poor QOL (58.05%; 95% CI:39.28 - 44.65). Factors associated with poor QOL were age 46-59 years (AOR=4.30; 95% CI: 2.84-6.51, p-value<0.001), insufficient financial status with debt (AOR=5.89; 95% CI: 3.85-9.01, p-value<0.001), low caregiving knowledge level (AOR=2.43; 95% CI: 1.63-3.64, p-value<0.001), average to low attitude caregiving level (AOR=4.45; 95% CI: 3.30-5.99, p-value <0.001), and having depression (AOR = 3.57; 95% CI: 1.93-6.59, p-value<0.001).

Conclusion

The findings from this study have important implications for healthcare practice and policy—interventions aimed at improving the QOL of caregivers.

Keywords: Quality of life, Dependent patients’ caregivers, Long-term care, Perception of caregiving, Confidence intervals, Generalized linear mixed model.

1. INTRODUCTION

The world is evolving toward a transitional society right now. The most prominent example of this pheno- menon has been seen in Thailand, which is anticipated to become “A completely aging society.” It has been in the top 10 Asian countries (Aged Society) since 2000, with 10% of the population being 60 years of age or older. By 2022, this percentage increased to 20% of the total population, and by 2037, it is expected to become a “super-aged society,” with 28% of the population being 60 years of age or older. Thailand's population aged sixty and over increased significantly from 2000 onwards. By 2022, twenty percent of the population was in this age bracket.It is expected to transform into a “super-aged society” by 2037, with 28% of its people being 60 years of age or older. The population of Thailand, which is 60 years of age and older, has increased significantly since 2000. The percentage of people in this age range by 2022 was 20%. Forecasts indicate that by 2037, 28% of Thais will be 60 years of age or older, making the country an aging society.

According to the Mahidol University Institute for Population and Social Research (2022), an increasing number of people worldwide are dealing with chronic health problems because of scientific developments and longer life expectancies. The emphasis on the family members and caregivers of dependent patients has grown because of this shift in the population. Conditions that last a year or more and require continuous medical care limit everyday activities, or both are referred to as chronic illnesses. The following ailments are categorized as chronic diseases by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): arthritis, type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and obesity [1].

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released recommendations intended to help caregivers in their efforts to manage the requirements of people with chronic illnesses properly. The organization recognizes the urgency with which the healthcare system must be mobilized. In order to improve the general well-being and quality of life of people with chronic health issues, caregivers should make sure they have the necessary tools and methods to offer them high-quality care and support [2].

People who are chronically sick frequently have one or more chronic diseases that restrict their abilities, leading to functional reliance. As a result, people with disabilities typically require greater help with everyday tasks2. According to data from Thailand's National Statistical Office, 417,000 individuals were dependent in 2016, making up 3.8% of the country's aged population overall. It is projected that 1,336,000 senior people—or 6.7% of the entire elderly population—will be unable to carry out everyday tasks in 2037 due to chronic illness (The Thailand National Statistical Office, 2016). These dependent people require caregivers to help with both their daily life activities and medical needs. Informal carers, also known as informal caregivers, are unpaid family members who help people who require assistance with daily living tasks, support, and care. Family caregivers are the backbone of systems for providing long-term care and are essential in helping patients who are reliant on them [3].

It is generally accepted that the complex and multifaceted elements impacting caregiver strain are indicators of the need for Long-Term Care (LTC). As of 2019, the National Health Commission Office in Thailand identified the caregiving setting, social context, expec- tations, and resources as important factors.Due to the fact that family caregivers' experiences along the course of the disease and the needs of their care vary, the perception of burden is subjective. The time, energy, and effort demands placed on caregivers are complex and involve a multitude of tasks. These put a lot of strain on the family members, who seem to be the major informal caregivers at the moment. Caregiver load, according to earlier research, is the term used to describe the emotional, psychological, and financial difficulties associated with providing care for a loved one—typically a family member who is ill. Negative health effects, such as higher levels of anxiety and depression, less healthy behaviour, and stress, are directly linked to caregiver load. According to Katsarou, Intas, and Pierrakos [4], caregivers who live with chronically sick individuals feel stress in their personal lives, social isolation, financial hardship, and intrinsic reward. Moreover, international studies demonstrate the inter- dependence between caregivers and the patients they support, as well as the impact that the patient’s level of functioning and course has on the caregiver’s mental health [5-8]. The duration of the care is also an important factor for the caregiver’s burden, i.e., the longer the care, the greater the caregiver’s burden and burnout; all of these indicate a poor quality of life for the patient's caregivers.

To manage these challenges, Thailand's Ministry of Public Health has promoted home-based care, training family members to assist with daily activities and health management. Despite this, caregivers often face fatigue, stress, physical health issues, and mental health challenges exacerbated by the lack of a designated primary caregiver. Social capital, including social networks and perceived support, plays a crucial role in improving health outcomes and quality of life. However, there is limited research on the quality of life of caregivers in Thailand, particularly in the Northeast region. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of quality of life among caregivers and its related factors to fill this gap and provide insights for developing strategies to enhance caregiver well-being and improve hospital-community cooperation.

2. METHODS

2.1. Study Design and Population

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,335 Dependent Patients’ Caregivers aged 18–59 years in the Northeastern Region of Thailand. The survey used multi- stage random sampling to select participants from 4 health regions which represented the total population in the Northeastern region of Thailand. The inclusion criteria were caregivers who were the family members and had at least one year of experience in care. They had to communicate well, be proficient in Thai languages, and be willing to cooperate. Caregivers who did not reside in the area during data collection were excluded from this study.

2.2. Sample Size Calculation and Sampling Method

The sample size for this study was calculated using a formula for sample size determination in multivariable analysis, specifically using multiple logistic regression statistics. The data was derived from a study on previous literature on stroke caregiver (Narissara Wongsombat, 2016). The variable of interest was the quality of life of caregivers for patients with dependency. Using the Hsieh, Bloch and Larson (1998). Formula for multivariate analysis in multiple logistic regression:

n= 600.978

The influence of the relationship between independent variables must be adjusted with the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value. The researcher selected ρ=0.55 as the minimum sample size for the study because it has a VIF value of 2.22, and the total sample size was 1,335.

Multistage sampling was used. Health regions were the primary sampling unit. Twenty provinces were randomly selected in the second step. Subsequently, district and subdistrict were randomly selected step by step to reach all of the samples.

2.3. Dependent Factors

The dependent variable in this study was the Quality of Life (QOL) of dependent patients’ caregivers (poor/good).

2.4. Operational Definition

Dependent patients are individuals who are unable to perform daily activities independently or are completely disabled, scoring between 0 and less than 11 on the Barthel ADL index as assessed by medical personnel in Northeastern Thailand in 2023. Their caregivers, who are usually family members aged 18-59, assume the primary responsibility of care without receiving any financial compensation from the government or private sector. The duration of care is measured in years, rounded up to one year if it is six months or more. Caregivers' perception of care encompasses their awareness of the challenges and time commitment involved.

The concept of social capital encompasses the strength and readiness of social relationships and roles built on trust and cooperation within the community, including both perceptual and structural aspects. The quality of life for dependent patients is evaluated based on the caregivers' views regarding economic, social, physical, and mental health factors, as well as the social environ- ment. Caregivers' mental health is influenced by their caregiving duties. Personal characteristics such as gender, age, education, religion, marital status, occupation, family size, income, living conditions, and healthcare entitle- ments also play a significant role in their ability to provide care.

2.5. Instrument and Data Collection

The questionnaire development process involved several steps. First, relevant documents, theories, and previous research were reviewed. Next, the content scope was defined to create questionnaires and questions that ensured consistency with research objectives and relevant variables. Then, the quality of life questionnaire used WHOQOL-BREF and the Mental health questionnaire used (CES-D) by Radloff (1977), and the questionnaires were created and reviewed by seven thesis advisors and experts for content validity. The questionnaires were then revised based on feedback and tested with 30 caregivers of dependent patients aged 18-59 to evaluate the quality of the tools before actual implementation.

The validity of the questionnaire was assessed through content validity and reliability. To assess the reliability of the questionnaires, the researcher conducted a try-out pilot study with 30 caregivers of dependent patients aged 18-59, who exhibited characteristics similar to those of the study sample. After the trial pilot study, the reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, with a reliability of 0.91

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using Stata version 14.0 (Copyright of Khon Kaen University). Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used; however, for continuous data, mean, standard deviation, median, and maximum minimum were used. Simple logistic regression was performed to identify individual associations between each independent variable and weight loss product use. Independent factors with a P-value < 0.25 were processed for a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) using multi-level analysis to identify the association between factors and QOL of dependent patients’ caregivers when controlling for the effects of other covariates. The 4 health regions were divided into 8 provinces, and provinces were selected as random effects. The magnitude of association was presented as Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). The significance level was set at P < 0.05.

2.7. Ethical Approval

Ethical approval Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ethics committee in Human Research of Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand (HE672057).

3. RESULTS

As shown in Table 1, demographic and socioeconomic distribution among dependent patients’ caregivers in the northeastern region of Thailand among 1,335 dependent patients’ caregivers, the majority of the respondents were female (73.26%), 46.44% of them aged between 31–45 years, 54.76% had Primary /equivalent education, 97.53% were Buddhist, 57.83% married, 44.12% were farmers, 44.12% of their average family size was 5 – 6 persons (Tables 1 and 2).

The prevalence of QOL among caregivers of dependent patients. The examination of data from 1,335 caregivers of dependent patients in Thailand's Northeastern area revealed that 58.05 percent of caregivers of dependent patients had a low quality of life (Table 3).

Table 1.
Sociodemographic of participants (n=1,335).
Personal Characteristics Factors of Caregivers Quantity Percentage
1. Gender
Male 357 26.74
Female 978 73.26
2. Age Group (years)
18 - 30 199 14.91
31 – 45 620 46.44
45 – 59 516 38.65
Mean (S.D.) 46.55 (12.77)
Median (Min: Max) 47 (20: 59)
3. Education Level
No formal education 45 3.37
Primary /equivalent 731 54.76
Secondary/equivalent 192 14.38
High school/equivalent 219 16.40
Bachelor's degree 115 8.61
Postgraduate degree 33 2.47
4. Religion
Christian 33 2.47
Buddhist 1,302 97.53
5. Marital Status
Marital Status 31 2.32
Married 772 57.83
Divorced 163 12.21
Widowed 369 27.64
6. Occupation
Government officer/State enterprise employee 72 5.39
Employee/Freelance 265 19.85
Unemployed 409 30.64
Farmer/Fisherman 589 44.12
7. Family Size (person)
< 3 203 15.21
3 - 4 443 33.18
5 - 6 535 40.07
> 6 154 11.54
8. Average Monthly Income (THB)
< 5,000 127 9.51
5,000 - 15,000 861 64.49
15,001 - 30,000 240 17.98
> 30,000 107 8.01
Mean (S.D.) 13,442.1 (10,605.86)
Median (Min: Max) 10,000 (1,600: 50,000)
9. Type of Residence
Rented house/room 22 1.65
Commercial building 74 5.54
Two story house 608 45.54
Single house 631 47.27
10. Economic Status
Sufficient with saving 34 2.55
Sufficient without saving 184 13.78
Insufficient with no debt 336 25.17
Insufficient with debt 781 58.50
11. Healthcare Coverage
CSMBS 26 1.95
Social security scheme 39 2.92
Universal health coverage 1,270 95.13
Table 2.
Caregiving factors of the sample group (n=1,335).
Factors Related to Providing Care Quantity Percentage
1. Duration of being a caregiver (years)
< 5 465 34.84
5 - 10 600 44.95
11 -20 199 14.91
> 20 71 5.32
Mean (S.D.) 6.01 (5.20)
Median (Min: Max) 4 (1: 45)
2. Daily caregiving hours (hours)
< 4 277 20.75
4 - 8 479 35.88
9 - 12 186 13.93
> 13 393 29.44
Mean (S.D.) 10.05 (8.10)
Median (Min: Max) 6 (2: 24)
3. Patient care activities in a day
3.1 Feeding
Oral feeding 757 56.70
NG tube feeding 163 12.21
Oral feeding and NG tube feeding 415 31.09
3.2 Body cleaning
Changing diapers and Bathing 633 47.42
Changing diapers 440 32.96
Bathing 213 15.96
None 49 3.67
3.3 Medication Administration
Oral 1,052 78.80
Oral 213 15.96
None 70 5.24
3.4. Physical Rehabilitation
Changing posture and rehabilitation 521 39.03
movement assistant 392 29.36
Changing posture 375 28.09
None 47 3.52
3.5 Assisting with excretion
Urinary catheter care and fecal removal 832 62.32
Urinary catheter care 300 22.47
Fecal removal 152 11.39
None 51 3.82
3.6 Pressure Ulcer Care
None 1,208 90.49
Bedsore but no wound dressing 54 4.04
Bedsore wound dressing sometimes 51 3.82
Bedsore wound dressing daily 22 1.65
4. Safe Environment for Patient Care
4.1 Bed Rails
None 1,003 75.13
Has 332 24.87
4.2 Cleaning of Medical Equipment
None 1,003 75.13
Cleaning with detergent 233 17.45
Boiling/steaming 99 7.42
5. Impact of Being the Primary Caregiver
None 972 72.81
Late for work 227 17.00
Took leave/absent from work 72 5.39
, Quit job 64 4.79
6. Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
Underweight (< 18.25) 30 2.25
Normal (18.25 – 22.99) 678 50.79
Overweight (23.00 – 24.99) 214 16.03
Obesity level 1 (25.00 – 29.99) 356 26.67
Obesity level 2 (> 30) 57 4.27
Mean (S.D.) 23.28 (3.31)
Median (Min: Max) 22.51 (17.31: 37.25)
7. Chronic Diseases
Had 928 69.51
None 407 30.49
8. Illness in the Past Month
None 1,177 88.16
Had 158 11.84
9. Hospitalization in the Past Year
None 1,229 92.06
Hospitalized 106 7.94
10. Accidents in the Past 3 Months
None 1,311 98.20
Had accidents 24 1.80
11. Perceived Health Status (points)
Poor- very poor (1-3) 294 22.02
Moderate (4-6) 792 59.33
Healthy - very healthy (7-10) 249 18.65
Mean (S.D.) 5.80 (1.60)
Median (Min: Max) 6 (3: 10)
12. Health Services Used
Sub-district Health Promoting Hospital 743 55.66
Community hospital 457 34.23
Private clinic 96 7.19
General hospital / Regional
hospital
39 2.92
13. Average Monthly Family Expenses (THB)
< 5,000 55 4.12
5,000 – 15,000 57 4.27
15,001 – 30,000 1,079 80.82
> 30,000 144 10.79
Mean (S.D.) 9,989.21 (10,523.79)
Median (Min: Max) 8,000 (1,200: 60,000)
14. Average Monthly Family Expenses (THB)
< 3,000 415 31.09
3,000 – 5,000 715 53.56
5,001 – 10,000 93 6.97
> 10,000 112 8.39
Mean (S.D.) 3,791.76 (5,020.10)
Median (Min: Max) 3,000 (500: 50,000)
Level of Knowledge
Low 1,170 87.64
Average to High 165 12.36
Mean (S.D.) 2.98 (2.06)
Median (Min: Max) 3 (0: 10)
Attitude toward Care giving
Poor to average 655 49.06
Good 680 50.94
Mean (S.D.) 19.08 (3.46)
Median (Min: Max) 18 (14: 25)
Mental Health Status
No Depression 84 6.29
Depression 1,251 93.71
Mean (S.D.) 35.51 (11.50)
Median (Min: Max) 33 (20: 63)
Social Capital (Level)
Low 594 44.49
Average 715 53.56
High 26 1.95
Mean (S.D.) 197.32 (46.04)
Median (Min: Max) 190 (120: 275)
Table 3.
QOL of dependent patients’ caregivers (n= 1,335).
QOL n % 95%CI
Good 194 14.53 12.68 - 16.54
Average 366 27.42 25.04 - 29.89
Poor 775 58.05 39.28 - 44.65

4. DISCUSSION

The study identifies several critical factors that significantly affect the Quality Of Life (QOL) of caregivers for dependent patients in Northeastern Thailand. These factors include age, economic status, monthly caregiving expenses, caregiving knowledge level, caregiving perception level, and mental health status. Here is a detailed discussion of each factor (Tables 4-6):

Table 4.
QOL of dependent patients’ caregivers in Northeastern Thailand by bivariate analysis (n=1,335).
Personal Characteristics of Caregivers n Percentage
of poor QOL
Crude OR 95%CI p-value
1. Gender 0.075
Male 357 54.06 1 1 -
Female 978 59.51 1.26 0.97-1.63 -
2. Age Group (years) <0.001
18 - 30 199 30.15 1 1 -
31 – 45 620 55.00 2.83 2.01-3.98 -
45 – 59 516 72.48 6.10 4.26-8.74 -
3. Education Level 0.156
No formal education 45 46.67 1 1 -
Primary /equivalent 731 58.41 1.60 0.87-2.94 -
Secondary/equivalent 192 61.98 1.86 0.97-3.58 -
High school/equivalent 219 53.42 1.31 0.69-2.49 -
Bachelor's degree 115 64.35 2.06 1.02-4.14 -
Postgraduate degree 33 51.52 1.21 0.49-2.98 -
4. Religion 0.443
Christian 33 51.52 1 1 -
Buddhist 1,302 97.53 1.31 0.65-2.61 -
5. Marital Status 0.616
Single 31 51.61 1 1 -
Married 772 57.25 1.25 0.61-2.58 -
Divorced 369 58.54 1.32 0.63-2.76 -
Widowed 163 61.96 1.53 0.70-3.30 -
6. Occupation <0.001
Unemployed 409 37.65 1 1 -
Government officer/State
enterprise employee
72 58.33 2.32 1.39-3.86 -
Employee/Freelance 265 64.91 3.06 2.22-4.22 -
Farmer/Fisherman 589 69.10 3.70 2.84-4.83 -
7. Family Size (person) <0.05
< 3 203 49.26 1 1 -
3 - 6 978 57.98 1.42 1.05-1.92 -
> 6 154 70.13 2.42 1.55-3.76 -
8. Average Monthly Income (THB) <0.001
> 30,000 107 36.45 1 1 -
15,001 – 30,000 240 51.67 1.86 1.67-2.97 -
< 15,000 988 60.94 2.84 1.87-4.29 -
9. Type of Residence 0.593
Commercial building 74 52.70 1 1 -
Rented house/room 22 54.55 1.08 0.41-2.80 -
Single and Two-story house 1,239 59.43 1.26 0.78-2.02 -
10. Economic Status <0.001
Sufficient with saving 34 40.22 1 1 -
Sufficient with out saving 184 44.12 2.17 1.56-2.45 -
Insufficient with no debt 336 47.02 2.32 1.94-2.89 -
Insufficient with debt 781 67.61 3.10 2.23-4.31 -
11. Healthcare Coverage 0.486
CSMBS 26 57.72 1 1 -
Social security scheme 39 64.10 1.31 0.67-2.54 -
Universal health coverage 1,270 65.38 1.38 0.61-3.13 -

Table 5.
Quality of life of caregivers of dependent patients in Northeastern Thailand by bivariate analysis (n=1,335).
Factors Related to Providing Care n Percentage
of poor QOL
Crude OR 95%CI p-value
1. Duration of being a caregiver (years) 0.468
< 5 - 10 1,065 57.28 1 1 -
11 - 20 199 60.30 1.13 0.83 - 1.54 -
> 20 71 63.38 1.29 0.78 - 2.12 -
2. Daily caregiving hours (hours) <0.001
< 4 277 37.91 1 1 -
4 - 8 479 54.49 1.96 1.45-2.65 -
9 - 12 186 67.74 3.44 2.32-5.09 -
> 13 393 72.01 4.21 3.04-5.49 -
3. Patient care activities in a day -
3.1 Feeding - - - - <0.001
Oral feeding 757 47.95 1 1 -
NG tube feeding 163 52.76 1.21 1.06-1.70 -
Oral feeding and NG tube 415 78.55 3.97 3.02-5.23 -
3.2 Body cleaning <0.001
None 49 30.61 1 1 -
Bathing 213 51.64 2.61 1.24-4.70 -
Changing diapers and bathing 1,073 62.58 3.95 1.87-6.47 -
3.3 Medication administration - - - - <0.001
None 70 24.29 1 1 -
Oral 1,052 58.65 4.42 2.52-7.74 -
NG Tube 213 66.20 6.10 3.29-11.30 -
3.4. Physical Rehabilitation <0.001
None and movement assistant 422 48.10 1 1 -
Changing posture 392 58.35 1.67 1.12-1.96 -
Changing posture and rehabilitation 521 67.37 2.33 1.75-3.10 -
3.5 Assisting with excretion <0.01
None 51 50.33 1 1 -
Urinary catheter care 300 59.35 1.44 1.12-1.88 -
Urinary catheter care and fecal
removal
984 78.43 3.59 1.77-7.26 -
3.6 Pressure Ulcer Care <0.001
None 1,208 55.38 1 1 -
Bedsore but no wound dressing 22 77.27 2.73 1.00-7.47 -
Bedsore wound dressing
sometimes
51 81.48 3.54 1.77-7.11 -
Bedsore wound dressing daily 54 89.24 6.04 2.56-14.27 -
4. Safe Environment for Patient Care -
4.1 Bed Rails <0.05
Has 332 44.28 1 1 -
None 1,003 62.61 2.11 1.64-2.71 -
4.2 Cleaning of Medical Equipment <0.01
None 1,003 54.24 1 1 -
Cleaning with detergent 233 66.95 1.71 1.27-2.31 -
Boiling/steaming 99 75.76 2.64 1.64-4.24 -
5. Impact of Being the Primary Caregiver <0.001
None 972 54.01 1 1 -
Late for work 227 65.64 1.63 1.20-2.20 -
Took leave/absent from work,
Quit job
136 74.26 2.45 1.64-3.68 -
6. Body Mass Index (kg/m2) < 0.05
Underweight (< 18.25) 30 50.00 1 1 -
Normal (18.25 – 22.99) 678 56.05 1.27 0.61-2.65 -
Overweight (23.00 – 24.99) 214 57.01 1.33 0.62-2.85 -
Obesity level 1 (25.00 – 29.99) 356 59.27 1.45 0.69-3.07 -
Obesity level 2 (> 30) 57 82.46 4.70 1.75-12.63 -
7. Chronic Diseases <0.01
None 407 41.03 1 1 -
Had 928 65.52 2.73 2.15-3.47 -
8. Illness in the Past Month 0.051
None 1,177 57.09 1 1 -
Had 158 65.19 1.41 0.99-1.99 -
9. Hospitalization in the Past Year 0.612
None 1,229 58.85 1 1 -
Hospitalized 106 60.38 1.11 0.74-1.66 -
10. Accidents in the Past 3 Months 0.191
None 1,311 54.82 1 1 -
Had accidents 24 70.83 1.77 0.73-4.30 -
11. Perceived Health Status (points) <0.001
Healthy - very healthy (7-10) 249 39.80 1 1 -
Moderate (4-6) 792 58.84 2.16 1.64-2.84 -
Poor- very poor (1-3) 294 77.11 5.09 3.49-7.42 -
12. Health Services Used <0.001
General hospital / Regional hospital 39 31.95 1 1 -
Community hospital 457 67.71 4.47 2.79-7.15 -
Private clinic 96 69.23 4.79 2.36-9.73 -
Sub-district Health Promoting
Hospital
743 72.27 5.55 4.31-7.16 -
13. Average Monthly Family Expenses (THB) 0.597
< 5,000 55 53.73 1 1 -
5,000 – 15,000 57 54.39 1.07 0.51-2.25 -
> 15,000 1,223 58.46 1.26 0.73-2.17 -
14. Average Monthly Family Expenses (THB) <0.001
< 3,000 415 42.17 1 1 -
3,000 – 5,000 715 60.98 2.14 1.67-2.74 -
5,001 – 10,000 93 78.49 5.00 2.94-8.52 -
> 10,000 112 81.25 5.94 3.59-9.92 -
Level of Knowledge <0.001
Average to High 165 33.94 1 1 -
Low 1,170 61.45 3.10 2.20-4.37 -
Attitude toward Caregiving <0.001
Good 680 45.59 1 1 -
Poor to average 655 70.99 2.92 2.32-3.66 -
Mental Health Status <0.001
No Depression 84 22.62 1 1 -
Depression 1,251 60.43 5.22 3.09–8.82 -
Social Capital (Level) 0.059
High 26 51.00 1 1 -
Average 715 60.98 1.56 0.71-3.42 -
Low 594 54.88 1.22 0.55–2.67 -
Table 6.
Factors related to the quality of life of caregivers of dependent patients in Northeastern Thailand by multivariable analysis (n=1,335).
Factors n Percentage
of poor QOL
Crude OR GLMM
Adj. OR
95%CI p-value
1. Age Group (years) <0.001
18 - 30 199 30.15 1 1 1 -
31 – 45 620 55.00 2.69 2.70 1.83-3.99 -
45 – 59 516 72.48 6.10 4.30 2.84-6.51 -
2. Economic Status <0.001
Sufficient with saving 34 40.22 1 1 1 -
Sufficient without saving 184 44.12 2.17 1.96 1.48-2.51 -
Insufficient with no debt 336 47.02 2.32 2.91 1.81-4.67 -
Insufficient with debt 781 67.61 3.10 5.89 3.85- 9.01 -
3. Caregiving Knowledge Level <0.001
Average to High 165 33.94 1 1 1 -
Low 1,170 61.45 3.10 2.43 1.63-3.64 -
4. Attitude Level <0.001
High 680 45.59 1 1 1 -
Average 655 70.99 2.92 4.45 3.30-5.99 -
5. Mental Health <0.001
No Depression 84 22.62 1 1 1 -
Depression 1,251 60.43 5.22 3.57 1.93-6.59 -

It has been found that caregivers aged 45-59 of dependent patients have a higher likelihood of experiencing poor quality of life compared to other age groups. This finding is consistent with previous studies, both internationally and in Thailand, which have identified age as a significant predictor of caregiver burden. According to Adelman et al. (2014) [9], age is a primary factor in predicting caregiver burden and related distress. Nearly half of the caregivers are working-age individuals whose health deteriorates with age. This aligns with Orem's (1991) [10] concept that age indicates maturity or the ability to manage the environment, mental state, and perception. Age influences a person's self-care ability, which increases until adulthood and may decline in old age. Similarly, a study by Prachuntaen (2018) [11] found that age significantly affects the physical quality of life of elderly caregivers. Factors considered include physical strength, daily caregiving capacity, and significant bodily changes at a 0.05 statistical significance level. The most impactful factor on physical quality of life is daily caregiving capacity. This research indicates that age is a crucial determinant of caregiving ability, decision-making, and overall caregiving capacity, which diminishes with age. Consequently, as caregivers age, their caregiving burden increases, leading to a decline in quality of life and increased difficulty in caregiving.

People with higher incomes are generally able to plan their lives better and choose the four basic necessities of life to meet their needs with higher quality compared to those with lower incomes. Economic and social issues, as well as financial problems or poverty, contribute to stress and anxiety, which in turn affect the quality of life. Moreover, income is an indicator of financial stability. Caregivers must be prepared to cover medical expenses and related activities for dependents. Those with higher incomes who can adequately meet necessary expenses will have a better quality of life compared to caregivers with lower and insufficient incomes. This is consistent with the study by Suttasri et al., which found a moderate positive correlation between income and the quality of life of caregivers of chronic patients with dependencies [12].

The knowledge in caregiving reveals that caregivers with a low level of knowledge tend to have a poor quality of life. The knowledge of patient health care negatively impacts the health care of those who are dependent on the caregiver’s health. This can be explained by the fact that caregivers who provide excellent care for those with health dependency have gained caregiving experience from various media, other individuals, and access to health care services related to patient care. This aligns with Green's concept, which states that knowledge is a fundamental factor that motivates an individual's actions and can lead to personal satisfaction derived from learning experiences. This is also consistent with studies by Ahmed and Ghaith (2018) [13]. which found that internal factors affecting the performance of caregivers for dependent elderly are knowledge of elderly care. This knowledge promotes efficient caregiving, enhances the self-help capacity of those with depen- dencies, and maintains a good quality of life for caregivers.

Perception in caregiving studies shows that moderate perception is associated with a poorer quality of life. This is consistent with the study by Turnbull et al., [14] which examined factors related to caregiving for homebound elderly. They found that perceptions and attitudes towards elderly care were at a moderate level. Additionally, it aligns with the study by Purimat et al. [15], which investigated factors influencing the quality of life of caregivers for dependent elderly in Chanthaburi Province. They found that per- ceptions of elderly care could predict 58.1% of the quality of life of caregivers for dependent elderly. However, this contrasts with the study by Promtingkarn et al.(2019) [16], which found that a positive attitude had the greatest impact on elderly care in the health service system. This study shows that perception in caregiving reflects gratitude and repayment of kindness towards parents, spouses, and others. Haley et al. (2009) [17] found that caregivers feel valued when caring for patients. Factors influencing and predicting the quality of life of caregivers for dependent elderly include the attitude towards elderly care, with self-esteem being the most significant predictor. This can be explained by the fact that caregivers' self-worth and gratitude contribute to their sense of value, and if they are confident in their capabilities and have strong motivation, they can face various challenges and achieve a good quality of life. This is consistent with the study by Saban et al., which found that the perception of self-worth was the most significant predictor of caregivers' quality of life [18].

Mental health of caregivers: Studies have found that depression is associated with a poorer quality of life, which studied the factors predicting stress coping in caregivers of spinal cord injury patients. It found that participants who received correct caregiving information were better able to make appropriate problem-solving decisions, leading to more effective stress coping. Additionally, previous studies have found that caregiver role stress and caregiver attitudes significantly explain the variance in caregiver readiness for caring for dependent elderly. Considering the weight and direction of caregiver role stress, it was found that lower caregiver role stress is associated with higher readiness to care for dependent elderly. Caregiver role stress is the most influential factor in predicting caregiver readiness to care for dependent elderly, leading to mental health problems, depression, and poor quality of life [19].

The burden on primary caregivers is related to the progression of psychiatric disorders and mental health. Common mental health problems in caregivers include anxiety (95%) and depression (45%). Symptoms of severe mental conditions (post-traumatic stress disorder) and psychological distress include feelings of helplessness, uncertainty, hopelessness, loss of dignity, guilt, and impaired quality of life [20].

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study have important implications for healthcare practice and policy. Interventions aimed at improving the QOL of caregivers should focus on:

1. Providing financial support or subsidies to alleviate the economic burden of caregiving.

2. Offering training and educational programs to enhance caregiving knowledge and skills.

3. Promoting positive perceptions of caregiving through counseling and support groups.

4. Ensuring access to mental health services to address and prevent depression among caregivers.

By addressing these factors, it is possible to improve the overall well-being and QOL of caregivers, which in turn can positively impact the care they provide to dependent patients. Future research should continue to understand the impact of diversity on caregivers’ needs for support. It should also continue to develop and evaluate alternative models of care. Family-centered care may be the way forward to optimize care systems’ abilities to meet the heterogeneous needs of family caregivers. Ultimately, caregivers must be supported as they are essential to the well-being of those they care for and to the QOL of them.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

J.P.: Contributed to the study’s concept and design; W.I.: Contributed to the validation; K.T. Wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

WHO = World Health Organization
CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
VIF = Variance Inflation Factor
QOL = Quality of Life
AORs = Adjusted Odds Ratios
CIs = Confidence Intervals

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Ethics approval was received from the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee for Human Research, Thailand (Reference No. HE672057).

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

All human research procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

STANDARDS OF REPORTING

STROBE guidelines were followed.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

All data generated or analyzed during this study are available on request from the corresponding author [T.M.].

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express sincere appreciation to all dependent patients’ caregivers of eight provinces in Northeastern as well as the directors of each sub-districthealth-promoting hospital for the data collection. Special thanks to the Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Thailand, for the academic support.

REFERENCES

1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chronic disease. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/index.htm
2
World Health Organization (WHO). World health report 2006: Working together for health: World Health Organization. 2006. Available from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=World%20health%20report%202006:%20working%20together%20for%20health:%20World%20Health%20Organization&citation_year=2004
3
Limpawattana P, Theeranut A, Chindaprasirt J, Sawanyawisuth K, Pimporm J. Caregivers burden of older adults with chronic illnesses in the community: A cross-sectional study. J Community Health 2013; 38(1): 40-5.
4
Katsarou A, Intas G, Pierrakos G. Investigating the needs of caregivers of patients suffering from chronic diseases: A mixed-method study. Indian J Palliat Care 2023; 29(3): 285-91.
5
National Health Commission Office Thailand. 2nd National health assembly agenda 3.3, development of long-term care for dependent elderly people: Main document 2019. Available fromhttps://en.nationalhealth.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/3-2009-1.pdf
6
Cobley CS, Fisher RJ, Chouliara N, Kerr M, Walker MF. A qualitative study exploring patients’ and carers’ experiences of early supported discharge services after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2013; 27(8): 750-7.
7
Isik AT, Soysal P, Solmi M, Veronese N. Bidirectional relationship between caregiver burden and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A narrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2019; 34(9): 1326-34.
8
Ansah JP, Chiu CT. Projecting the chronic disease burden among the adult population in the United States using a multi-state population model. Front Public Health 2023; 10: 1082183.
9
Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. Caregiver burden. JAMA 2014; 311(10): 1052-60.
10
Orem D. Nursing: Concepts of practice.Nursing theories: The base for professional nursing practice 4th ed. 1991; 140.
11
Prachuntaen K. Life style and accessibility to health care services associated with longevity and healthy among elderly population in Loei province. J Health sci Community Health 2018; 1(2): 102-14.
12
Suttasri K, Nanasilp P, Pungchompoo W. Caregiving burdens and quality of life among caregivers of older adults receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J Nurs CMU 2021; 48(2): 119-31.
13
Ahmed HAAE, Ghaith RFAH. Effect of psycho-educational program on families’s perception of burden and attitudes toward mental illness among caregivers of patients with schizophrenia. J NursCMU 2018; 48(2): 119-31.
14
Turnbull N, Chuppawa W, Chada W, Kodchalee K. Factors associated with elderly care from caregivers in Chuen Chom district, Mahasarakham province, Thailand. J DMS 2019; 44(1): 127-30.
15
Purimat C, Nanthamongkolchai S, Munsawaengsub C, Pitikultang S, Yodmai K. Factors influencing quality of life among caregivers of dependent elderly persons in Chanthaburi province. Health Sci J Thai 2019; 28(4): 610-9.
16
Promtingkran N, Krueangchai S, Saisueb S. Elderly care in the health service system from perspectives of elders and families. J Health Sci Wellness 23(1): 107-19.
17
Haley WE, Allen JY, Grant JS, Clay OJ, Perkins M, Roth DL. Problems and benefits reported by stroke family caregivers: Results from a prospective epidemiological study. Stroke 2009; 40(6): 2129-33.
18
Saban KL, Griffin JM, Urban A, Janusek MA, Pape TLB, Collins E. Perceived health, caregiver burden, and quality of life in women partners providing care to Veterans with traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 2016; 53(6): 681-92.
19
Lloyd-Sherlock PG, Sasat S, Sanee A, Miyoshi Y, Lee S. The rapid expansion of residential long-term care services in Bangkok: A challenge for regulation J Public Hlth Dev 2021; 2(19): 89-101.
20
Sanderson C, Lobb EA, Mowll J, Butow PN, McGowan N, Price MA. Signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in caregivers following an expected death: A qualitative study. Palliat Med 2013; 27(7): 625-31.