Home › Research › Caregiving
Stress-Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality-of-life measures
Lyda C Arévalo-Flechas, Bertha Penny Flores, Hanzhou Wang, Hanyu Liang, Yan Li, Jonathan Gelfond, Sara Espinoza, Sharon L Lewis et al.. Research in nursing & health, 2022-02-16
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Hispanic family caregivers of people with dementia experience higher levels of stress compared to non-Hispanic white caregivers. Long-term stress causes depression, caregiver burden, cellular aging, and dysregulation of the immune, nervous, and endocrine systems. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the Spanish version of the English Stress-Busting Program (SBP) for Family Caregivers by determining changes in quality-of-life measures and biomarkers. Thirty-six caregivers completed the SBP in the language of their choice (14 Spanish-speaking Hispanics [HS], 8 English-speaking Hispanics [HE], and 14 non-Hispanic English [NHE] speakers). Quality-of-life measures included the Perceived Stress Scale, the Screen for Caregiver Burden, and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Assessment of oral health and immunity included salivary flow rate, pH, buffer capacity, total protein, and secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA). Indicators of stress (salivary cortisol), inflammation (C-reactive protein), and cellular aging (leukocyte telomere length) were assessed. Following completion of the SBP, the Spanish-speaking group had less depression and caregiver burden along with improved oral health and reduced cellular aging. When comparing baseline values to post-intervention, all three groups showed significant improvement in subjective caregiver burden. When the data from all three groups were combined, biomarkers that showed improvement after nine weeks of SBP included the stress hormone cortisol, salivary pH, and leukocyte telomere length. The results indicate that the Spanish SBP reduces caregiver stress as assessed by quality-of-life indicators and biomarkers. The Spanish SBP can help to mitigate health disparities in Hispanic Spanish-speaking caregivers.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Arévalo-Flechas, L. C., Flores, B. P., Wang, H., Liang, H., Li, Y., Gelfond, J., et al. (2022). Stress-Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality-of-life measures. Research in nursing & health. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22216
Vancouver
Arévalo-Flechas LC, Flores BP, Wang H, Liang H, Li Y, Gelfond J, et al. Stress-Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality-of-life measures. Research in nursing & health. 2022. doi:10.1002/nur.22216. PMID: 35174517.
BibTeX
@article{arevaloflechas2022-35174517,
author = {Arévalo-Flechas, Lyda C and Flores, Bertha Penny and Wang, Hanzhou and Liang, Hanyu and Li, Yan and Gelfond, Jonathan and Espinoza, Sara and Lewis, Sharon L and others},
title = {{Stress-Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality-of-life measures}},
journal = {Research in nursing \& health},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1002/nur.22216},
pmid = {35174517},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22216}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Hispanic family caregivers of people with dementia experience higher levels of stress compared to non-Hispanic white caregivers.
- When comparing baseline values to post-intervention, all three groups showed significant improvement in subjective caregiver burden.
- The results indicate that the Spanish SBP reduces caregiver stress as assessed by quality-of-life indicators and biomarkers.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Research in nursing & health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35174517) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.