Home › Research › End-of-life care
Validation of two short versions of the Zarit Burden Interview in the palliative care setting: a questionnaire to assess the burden of informal caregivers
Kühnel MB, Ramsenthaler C, Bausewein C, Fegg M, Hodiamont F.. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020-02-15
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Purpose Several validated outcome measures, among them the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), are valid for measuring caregiver burden in advanced cancer and dementia. However, they have not been validated for a wider palliative care (PC) setting with non-cancer disease. The purpose was to validate ZBI-1 (ultra-short version and proxy rating) and ZBI-7 short versions for PC. Methods In a prospective, cross-sectional study with informal caregivers of patients in inpatient (PC unit, hospital palliative support team) and outpatient (home care team) PC settings of a large university hospital, content validity and acceptability of the ZBI and its structural validity (via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis) were tested. Reliability assessment used internal consistency and inter-rater reliability and construct validity used known-group comparisons and a priori hypotheses on correlations with Brief Symptom Inventory, Short Form-12, and Distress Thermometer. Results Eighty-four participants (63.1% women; mean age 59.8, SD 14.4) were included. Structural validity assessment confirmed the unidimensional structure of ZBI-7 both in CFA and Rasch analysis. The item on overall burden was the best item for the ultra-short version ZBI-1. Higher burden was recorded for women and those with poorer physical health. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.83). Inter-rater reliability was moderate as proxy ratings estimated caregivers' burden higher than self-ratings (average measures ICC = 0.51; CI = 0.23-.69; p = 0.001). Conclusion The ZBI-7 is a valid instrument for measuring caregiver burden in PC. The ultra-short ZBI-1 can be used as a quick and proxy assessment, with the caveat of overestimating burden.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kühnel, M. B., Ramsenthaler, C., Bausewein, C., Fegg, M., & Hodiamont, F. (2020). Validation of two short versions of the Zarit Burden Interview in the palliative care setting: a questionnaire to assess the burden of informal caregivers. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05288-w
Vancouver
Kühnel MB, Ramsenthaler C, Bausewein C, Fegg M, Hodiamont F. Validation of two short versions of the Zarit Burden Interview in the palliative care setting: a questionnaire to assess the burden of informal caregivers. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2020. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05288-w. PMID: 32060707.
BibTeX
@article{kuhnel2020-32060707,
author = {Kühnel, M. B. and Ramsenthaler, C. and Bausewein, C. and Fegg, M. and Hodiamont, F.},
title = {{Validation of two short versions of the Zarit Burden Interview in the palliative care setting: a questionnaire to assess the burden of informal caregivers}},
journal = {Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1007/s00520-019-05288-w},
pmid = {32060707},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05288-w}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Eighty-four participants (63.1% women; mean age 59.8, SD 14.4) were included.
- The item on overall burden was the best item for the ultra-short version ZBI-1.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Effect size63.1%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomized / 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32060707) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “palliative”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.