Cognitive Impairment in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Cross-sectional Study
Le résumé fourni par la source
Aim: Cancer caregivers (CCG) is crucial in well-being of patients with cancer.They are responsible for making cognitively demanding decisions that affect patients' welfare.In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cognitive impairment of CCG and compare with non-CCG.Methods: This cross-sectional study focused on CCG and non-CCG patients at a university hospital.Caregiver-reported outcomes were measured by mini-mental state examination (MMSE).Results: A total of 217 caregivers were included.122 (56.3%) were in the CCG group and 95 (43.7%) were in the non-CCG group.The median age of the caregivers was 46.6 (20-76) years, and 56.6% were female.Education level was significantly higher among CCG (64.7 vs 29.5%, p<0.001).Mean MMSE scores were 27.9 and 24.2 for the non-CCG and CCG groups, respectively, corresponding to 0% and 40.1% of caregivers in the non-CCG and CCG groups with cognitive impairment.The mean difference in MMSE scores was statistically significant in all areas of cognitive function (p<0.001).In the CCG group with cognitive impairment, 15 and 40 patients had mild and moderate cognitive impairment.Cognitive impairment based on the MMSE was significantly associated with old age (p=0.006) and lower education level (p=0.001).Conclusion: This study revealed that cognitive impairment in CCGs is not uncommon.Because caregivers are decision makers during most of the disease processes of patients with cancer, any deterioration in their cognitive reserve should be checked to maintain optimal care for patients.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cognitive Impairment in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Cross-sectional Study
- Date Crossref
- 06/09/2024
- Éditeur
- Galenos Yayinevi
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.