SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Caring for a loved one with Parkinson's disease: the role of coping styles and relationship quality.

Int Psychogeriatr · 2022-02-07

DOI: 10.1017/s1041610221002866PMID: 35129103

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveInformal carers play an essential role in the care of individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). This role, however, is often fraught with difficulties, including emotional, physical, and financial. Coping styles and relationship quality have been hypothesized to influence the impact of stressors. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between carers' coping style, relationship quality, and carer burden.DesignCross-sectional.ParticipantsThirty-nine PD patient carer dyads were included in the study.MeasurementsParticipants completed self-rated questionnaires including the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Zarit Burden Interview, and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory.ResultsCorrelational analyses found significant and positive correlation between carer burden and all three coping styles (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and dysfunctional). There was also a moderate association between carers' perceived relationship quality and satisfaction and carer burden. Regression analyses found that carer's gender, severity of PD, relationship quality, emotion-focused, and dysfunctional coping styles did not predict carer burden. Conversely, problem-focused coping style predicted carer burden.ConclusionThe results highlight that there is no perfect way to react and care for a loved one and serves as important information for practitioners who design and implement interventions.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.