Validity and Reliability of the Caregiver Strain Index Scale in Women during the Puerperium in Spain
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire Adaptation
2.2. Content Validation by Experts
2.3. Pilot Test
2.4. Clinical Validation
2.4.1. Criterion Validity
2.4.2. Construct Validity
2.4.3. Reliability
Internal Consistency
Stability (Test–Retest)
3. Results
3.1. Definitive Questionnaire and Pilot Test
3.2. Clinical Validation
3.3. Criterion Validity
3.4. Construct Validity
3.5. Reliability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Caregiver Strain Index Adapted to Newborn Care (In Spanish)
Ítems | Sí = 1 | No = 0 |
1. Tiene trastornos de sueño (p. ej., porque su hijo/a se despierta por la noche). | ||
2. Es un inconveniente (p. ej., porque el cuidado consume mucho tiempo o se tarda mucho en proporcionarlo). | ||
3. Representa un esfuerzo físico. | ||
4. Supone una restricción (p. ej., porque el cuidado limita el tiempo libre). | ||
5. Ha habido modificaciones en la familia (p. ej., porque el cuidado ha roto la rutina o no hay intimidad). | ||
6. Ha habido cambios en los planes personales (p. ej., se tuvo que rechazar un trabajo o no se pudo ir de vacaciones). | ||
7. Ha habido otras exigencias de mi tiempo (p. ej., por parte de otros miembros de la familia). | ||
8. Ha habido cambios emocionales (p. ej., causa de fuertes discusiones). | ||
9. Algunos comportamientos son molestos (p. ej., el llanto, los despertares nocturnos…). | ||
10. Es molesto darse cuenta de que la situación ha cambiado tanto comparada con la de antes. | ||
11. Ha habido modificaciones en el trabajo (p. ej., a causa de la necesidad de dedicar tiempo para el cuidado). | ||
12. Es una carga económica. | ||
13. Nos ha desbordado totalmente (p. ej., por la preocupación sobre cómo cuidar a su hijo/a). | ||
Puntuación total (contar respuestas afirmativas) |
Appendix B. Caregiver Strain Index Adapted to Newborn Care (English Translation of the Spanish Version)
Items | Yes = 1 | No = 0 |
1. Sleep is disturbed (e.g., because your child wakes up at night). | ||
2. It is inconvenient (e.g., because helping takes so much time or it is a long drive over to help). | ||
3. It is a physical strain. | ||
4. It is confining (e.g., helping restricts free time). | ||
5. There have been family adjustments (e.g., because helping has disrupted routine or there has been no privacy). | ||
6. There have been changes in personal plans (e.g., had to turn down a job or could not go on vacation). | ||
7. There have been other demands on my time (e.g., from other family members). | ||
8. There have been emotional adjustments (e.g., because of severe arguments). | ||
9. Some behaviour is upsetting (e.g., crying, night awakenings). | ||
10. It is upsetting to find the situation has changed so much compared to before. | ||
11. There have been work adjustments (e.g., because of having to take time off). | ||
12. It is a financial strain. | ||
13. Feeling completely overwhelmed (e.g., because of concern about how to care for your child). | ||
Total Score (count yes responses) |
References
- Don, B.P.; Chong, A.; Biehle, S.N.; Gordon, A.; Mickelson, K.D. Anxiety across the transition to parenthood: Change trajectories among low-risk parents. Anxiety Stress Coping 2014, 27, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, H.; Kim, K.-E.; Kim, M.-Y.; Park, C.G.; Han, J.Y.; Choi, E.J. Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms and Anxiety during Pregnancy and Associations with Pregnancy Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razurel, C.; Kaiser, B.; Sellenet, C.; Epiney, M. Relation between perceived stress, social support, and coping strategies and maternal well-being: A review of the literature. Women Health 2013, 53, 74–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasanjanzadeh, P.; Faramarzi, M. Relationship between maternal general and specific-pregnancy stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms and pregnancy outcome. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017, 11, VC04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, A.M. Transition to motherhood. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2003, 32, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarit, S.H.; Birkel, R.C.; Malone-Beach, E. Family Involvement in the Treatment of the Frail Elderly; Goldstein, M.Z., Ed.; American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.; Chang, M.; Rose, K.; Kim, S. Predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia. J. Adv. Nurs. 2012, 68, 846–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crespo, M.; López, J. El Estrés en Cuidadores de Mayores Dependientes. Cuidarse para Cuidar; Psicología Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Domingues, N.S.; Verreault, P.; Hudon, C. Reducing Burden for Caregivers of Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Demen. 2018, 33, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- del-Pino-Casado, R.; Espinosa, A.; Lopez, C.; Orgeta, V. Sense of coherence, burden and mental health in caregiving: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 242, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cooper, C.; Balamurali, T.; Livingston, G. A systematic review of the prevalence and covariates of anxiety in caregivers of people with dementia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2007, 19, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britton, J.R. Maternal anxiety: Course and antecedents during the early postpartum period. Depress. Anxiety 2008, 25, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, S.S.; Martinson, I.M.; Arthur, D. Postpartum depression and related psychosocial variables in Hong Kong Chinese women: Findings from a prospective study. Res. Nurs. Health 2005, 28, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Geng, H.M.; Chuang, D.M.; Yang, F.; Yang, Y.; Liu, W.M.; Liu, L.H.; Tian, H.M. Prevalence and determinants of depression in caregivers of cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2018, 97, e11863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, B.; Tatangelo, G.; McCabe, M. Depression and Anxiety among Partner and Offspring Carers of People with Dementia: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist 2019, 59, e597–e610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, W.; Jiang, Y. A Meta-analytic Study of Predictors for Informal Caregiver Burden in Patients with Stroke. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2018, 27, 3636–3646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nurbaeti, I.; Deoisres, W.; Hengudomsub, P. Association between psychosocial factors and postpartum depression in South Jakarta, Indonesia. Sex. Reprod. Healthc. 2019, 20, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poo, F.A.; Espejo, S.C.; Godoy, P.C.; Gualda, C.M.; Hernandez, O.T.; Perez, H.C. Prevalence and risk factors associated with postpartum depression in puerperal women consulting in primary care. Rev. Med. Chil. 2008, 136, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
- Shorey, S.; Yin, C.C.; Debby, E.; Yiong, C.; Wai, W.T.; Seng, C.Y. Prevalence and incidence of postpartum depression among healthy mothers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2018, 104, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiala, A.; Švancara, J.; Klánová, J.; Kašpárek, T. Sociodemographic and delivery risk factors for developing postpartum depression in a sample of 3233 mothers from the Czech ELSPAC study. BMC Psychiatry 2017, 17, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marín-Morales, D.; Toro-Molina, S.; Peñacoba-Puente, C. Relationship between postpartum depression and psychological and biological variables in the initial postpartum period. Matern. Child Health J. 2018, 22, 866–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Míguez, M.C.; Fernández, V.; Pereira, B. Depresión postparto y factores asociados en mujeres con embarazos de riesgo. Rev. Int. Psicol. Clin. Salud. 2017, 25, 47–64. [Google Scholar]
- Escribà-Agüir, V.; Artazcoz, L. Gender differences in postpartum depression: A longitudinal cohort study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2011, 65, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia, L.; Ascaso, C.; Ojuel, J.; Navarro, P. Validation of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) in Spanish mothers. J. Affect. Disord. 2003, 75, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odriozola, M.; Vita, A.; Maiz, B.; Zialtzeta, L.; Bengoetxea, L. Índice de esfuerzo del cuidador: Test diagnóstico de sobrecarga en cuidadores de enfermos con demencia. Semergen 2008, 34, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B.C. Validation of a caregiver strain index. J. Gerontol. 1983, 38, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.; Lorenzo, A.; Santiago, P. Morbilidad en cuidadores de pacientes confinados en su domicilio. Aten. Prim. 1999, 24, 404–410. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez, M.J.; González, F.M. El cuidador del paciente con demencia: Aplicación del test Índice del Esfuerzo del Cuidador. Rev. Esp. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2004, 39, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moral, M.S.; Ortega, J.J.; López, M.J.; Pellicer, P. Perfil y riesgo de morbilidad psíquica en cuidadores de pacientes ingresados en su domicilio. Aten. Prim. 2003, 32, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, S.R.; Moral, M.S. Validación del Índice de Esfuerzo del Cuidador en la población española. Enferm. Comun. 2005, 1, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Escurra, L. Cuantificación de la validez de contenido por criterio de jueces. Rev Psicol. 1988, 6, 103–111. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, L.R. Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1985, 45, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feligreras-Alcalá, D.; Frías-Osuna, A.; del-Pino-Casado, R. Personal and Family Resources Related to Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Women during Puerperium. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, J.L.; Holden, J.M.; Sagovsky, R. Detection of postnatal depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 1987, 150, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buela, G.; Guillén, A.; Seisdedos, N. Manual del Cuestionario de Ansiedad Estado-Rasgo (STAI); TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Antonovsky, A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc. Sci. Med. 1993, 36, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadhead, W.E.; Gehlbach, S.H.; De-Gruy, F.V.; Kaplan, B.H. The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med. Care 1988, 26, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality. Clinical Practice Guide for Pregnancy and Puerperium Care; Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
- Guillén, A.; Buela, G. Actualización psicométrica y funcionamiento diferencial de los items en el State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psicothema 2011, 23, 510–515. [Google Scholar]
- Virués, J.; Martínez, P.; del Barrio, J.L.; Lozano, L.M. Validación transcultural de la Escala de Sentido de Coherencia de Antonovsky (OLQ 13) en ancianos mayores de 70 años. Med. Clin. 2007, 128, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellón, J.S.; Delgado, A.S.; del-Castillo, J.D.; Lardelli, P.C. Validity and reliability of the Duke-UNC-11 questionnaire of functional social support. Aten. Prim. 1996, 18, 153–163. [Google Scholar]
- del-Pino-Casado, R.; Priego-Cubero, E.; López-Martínez, C.; Orgeta, V. Subjective caregiver burden and anxiety in informal caregivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, M.M.; Zhang, T.M.; Liu, K.Z.; Gong, K.; Huang, C.H.; Dai, G.Z.; Hu, S.H.; Lin, F.R.; Chan, S.K.; Ng, S.; et al. Perception of social support and psychotic symptoms among persons with schizophrenia: A strategy to lessen caregiver burden. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2019, 65, 548–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Study Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update, 10th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fleiss, J.L. Reliability of Measurement. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Frías, D. Apuntes de Consistencia Interna de las Puntuaciones de un Instrumento de Medida; Universidad de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mandeville, P.B. El Coeficiente de Correlación Intraclase (CCI); Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León: Nuevo León, Mexico, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ugur, O.; Fadiloglu, C. Caregiver Strain Index validity and reliability in Turkish society. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2010, 11, 1669–1675. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ramasamy, M.S.; Ibrahim, R.; Madon, Z.; Arshat, Z. A validity study of Malay-translated version of the Modified Caregivers Strain Index Questionnaire (M-CSI-M). J. Bus. Soc. Rev. Emerg. Econ. 2017, 3, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, W.C.; Chan, C.L.; Suen, M. Validation of the Chinese version of the Modified Caregivers Strain Index among Hong Kong caregivers: An initiative of medical social workers. Health Soc. Work 2013, 38, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribeiro, O.; Brandão, D.; Oliveira, A.F.; Martín, I.; Teixeira, L.; Paúl, C. The Modified Caregiver Strain Index: Portuguese version. J. Health Psychol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yébenes, M.; Rodríguez, F.; Carmona, L. Validación de cuestionarios. Reumatol. Clin. 2009, 5, 171–177. [Google Scholar]
- Thornton, M.; Travis, S.S. Analysis of the reliability of the modified caregiver strain index. J. Gerontol. Soc. Sci. 2003, 58, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Variables | n (%) | M (SD) | CI 95% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 32.670 (4.58) | 32.06–33.26 | ||
Marital Status | Single | 8 (3.8) | 1.40–6.60 | |
Married | 166 (78.3) | 72.60–83.50 | ||
With couple | 35 (16.5) | 11.80–21.70 | ||
Separated or divorced | 3 (1.4) | 0.00–3.30 | ||
Education level | Primary | 18 (8.5) | 4.70–12.30 | |
Secondary | 21 (9.9) | 6.10–14.20 | ||
High School | 12 (5.7) | 2.40–9.00 | ||
FP Middle degree | 36 (17.0) | 12.30–22.20 | ||
FP Higher degree | 24 (11.3) | 7.10–15.60 | ||
University | 101 (47.6) | 41.00–54.20 | ||
Employment situation | Student | 3 (1.40) | 0.00–3.30 | |
Active or own account | 39 (18.4) | 13.70–23.60 | ||
Asset | 108 (50.9) | 43.90–57.10 | ||
Unemployed | 47 (22.2) | 16.50–27.80 | ||
Domestic work | 15 (7.1) | 4.20–10.80 | ||
Family income | <from 500€ | 1 (0.5) | 0.00–1.40 | |
From 500 to <1000€ | 27 (12.7) | 8.50–17.00 | ||
From 1000 to <1500€ | 60 (28.3) | 22.60–34.40 | ||
From 1500 to <2000€ | 54 (25.5) | 19.80–31.60 | ||
From 2000 to <2500€ | 29 (13.7) | 9.00–17.90 | ||
From 2500 to <3000€ | 28 (13.2) | 9.00–17.90 | ||
From 3000 to <5000€ | 10 (4.7) | 1.90–8.00 | ||
>from 5000€ | 3 (1.4) | 0.0–3.30 | ||
Pregnancy wanted | Yes | 191 (90.1) | 85.80–93.90 | |
No | 21 (9.9) | 6.10–14.20 | ||
No. of pregnancies | 1.835 (0.986) | 1.71–1.97 | ||
Type of delivery | Eutocic | 141 (66.5) | 60.80–73.10 | |
Instrumental | 32 (15.1) | 10.40–20.30 | ||
Caesarean section | 39 (18.4) | 13.20–23.60 | ||
Sex of newborn | Male | 112 (52.8) | 46.20–59.90 | |
Female | 100 (47.2) | 40.10–53.80 | ||
Family history of psychiatric pathology | Yes | 13 (6.1) | 3.30–9.40 | |
No | 199 (93.6) | 90.60–96.70 |
Variable | Mean (SD) | Significance | Cohen’s d | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|
Depressive symptoms | Yes: 6.68 (2.72) | p < 0.0001 | 0.77 | (0.45, 1.08) |
No: 4.69 (2.58) | ||||
Anxiety | Yes: 7.08 (2.62) | p < 0.0001 | 1.02 | (0.71, 1.34) |
No: 4.51 (2.47) | ||||
Sense of coherence | Yes: 4.28 (2.56) | p < 0.0001 | −0.76 | (−1.04, −0.48) |
No: 6.21 (2.62) | ||||
Social support | Yes: 4.88 (2.67) | p < 0.0001 | −0.81 | (−1.18, −0.43) |
No: 7.00 (2.52) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feligreras-Alcalá, D.; Cazalilla-López, M.d.P.; del-Pino-Casado, R.; Frías-Osuna, A. Validity and Reliability of the Caregiver Strain Index Scale in Women during the Puerperium in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073602
Feligreras-Alcalá D, Cazalilla-López MdP, del-Pino-Casado R, Frías-Osuna A. Validity and Reliability of the Caregiver Strain Index Scale in Women during the Puerperium in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(7):3602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073602
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeligreras-Alcalá, David, María del Pilar Cazalilla-López, Rafael del-Pino-Casado, and Antonio Frías-Osuna. 2021. "Validity and Reliability of the Caregiver Strain Index Scale in Women during the Puerperium in Spain" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 7: 3602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073602
APA StyleFeligreras-Alcalá, D., Cazalilla-López, M. d. P., del-Pino-Casado, R., & Frías-Osuna, A. (2021). Validity and Reliability of the Caregiver Strain Index Scale in Women during the Puerperium in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073602