GEEs have been used on decide which items was basically of the highest ZBI results (Dining table 3). The following diligent factors was significantly of this caregiving load: CDR-SOB and neuropsychiatric attacks, a reputation heart problems (CVD), investment utilization serwis randkowy fuck marry kill, cohabitation that have people, and you can a diagnosis out of LBD. The features from patients like gender, years, training peak, ambulatory reputation, ADL reliance, marital condition, the existence of providing missing, and you will allotment use were not rather for the caregiving weight.
Patient Situations With the Caregiving Weight
CDR-SOB, NPI, a diagnosis of LBD, and using home services were associated with higher caregiver burden. CDR-SOB and NPI showed a positive relationship with ZBI score (estimate = 0.38, SE = 0.13, Wald = 8.99, p = 0.003 and estimate = 0.013, SE = <0.01, Wald = 7.63, p = 0.006, respectively). Participants diagnosed with LBD were associated with higher ZBI scores (estimate = 3.83, SE = 1.47, Wald = 6.79, p=0.009). Patients using home services (estimate = 4.27, SE = 1.40, Wald = 9.25, p = 0.002) or both services were associated with higher caregiver burden (estimate = 8.00, SE = 3.06, Wald = 6.77, p = 0.009).
Patients that have a reputation CVD had straight down ZBI score (imagine = ?0.32, SE = 1.37, Wald = 5.82, p = 0.016). Clients managing children had lower load score weighed against those people living by yourself (guess = ?3.twenty-four, SE = 1.60, Wald = cuatro.thirteen, p = 0.042).
Caregiver Products Of the Down Caregiving Weight
Caregiver factors related to the ZBI score included the mood of carer, care mode, and if the ZBI responder was the primary caregiver. The CES-D score of the caregiver was significantly associated with a higher ZBI (estimate = 0.98, SE = 0.06, Wald = , p < 0.001). Being the primary caregiver was also associated with a higher caregiving burden (estimate = , SE = 5.90, Wald = 4.14, p = 0.042). Patients who were cared for by more than two caregivers had increased ZBI scores compared with patients who only needed accompanying (estimate = 2.28, SE = 1.33, Wald = 4.49, p = 0.034).
Figure step one reveals brand new mean ZBI get from GEE model according towards go after-up time and alzhiemer’s disease subtype. See your face-to-deal with interviews occured into weeks 6, several, and 18 just after becoming a member of this study. Customers and caregivers just who finished the fresh new six-month realize-up shown notably higher ZBI results having people clinically determined to have combined-sort of alzhiemer’s disease compared to Advertising method of alzhiemer’s disease (guess = , SE = 5.77, Wald = cuatro.03, p = 0.045). A total of 201 patient and caregiver dyads completed the initial interview from the six-times go after-up. Plus, 89 people and you can caregivers didn’t get to the first go after-upwards during the data several months (six months). Every baseline services were not significantly some other involving the over follow-up and no pursue-upwards teams (n = 340).
Participants just who completed the latest several-times pursue-up exhibited rather higher ZBI score for the victims diagnosed with LBD compared to the individuals identified as having Advertisement (guess = eight.81, SE = step 3.07, Wald = 6.47, p = 0.011). A maximum of 121 people and you will caregivers finished brand new 12-week realize-right up, whenever you are 146 customers didn’t reach the a dozen-few days go after-up amount of time in the study period. And, 363 patient and you can caregiver dyads was indeed destroyed-to-follow-up. Lost-to-follow-upwards clients got a significantly higher rate of Advertisement diagnosis (61.2 versus. 47.9%, p = 0.044) and you will tended to end up being maintained because of the more than one or two caregivers (38.8 vs. twenty-six.4%, p = 0.017).
The 18-month complete follow-up group showed significantly higher ZBI scores in subjects diagnosed with FTD compared with those diagnosed with AD (estimate = , SE = 5.09, Wald = , p < 0.001). A total of 76 patients and caregivers completed the 18-month follow-up evaluation. There were 257 patients and caregivers who did not reach the 18-month follow-up time in the study period. Also, 297 patients were lost-to-follow-up. The complete follow-up group showed significantly higher NPI scores ( vs. 9.71, p = 0.011) and a higher percentage used social resources (19.7 vs. 12.8%, p = 0.034) than the lost-to-follow-up group.