Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 211
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 369-376

Anticipatory Grief among Chinese Family Caregivers of Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study


1 Department of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
2 School of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China
3 Department of Nursing, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
4 Department of Digestive Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
5 Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China

Date of Submission11-Jan-2021
Date of Acceptance10-Apr-2021
Date of Web Publication31-May-2021

Correspondence Address:
MSN Yuhan Lu
Department of Nursing, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/apjon.apjon-214

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the interrelationship between anticipatory grief (AG), caregiver burden, communication, preparation for death, and coping style. Methods: A convenience sample of 256 Chinese family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer were recruited from an academic cancer hospital between April 2018 and May 2019. This cross-sectional survey included the AG Scale, caregiver burden (Caregiver Reaction Assessment), communication (Caregivers' Communication with Patients about Illness and Death Scale), preparation for death, and coping style (Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire). Structural equation modeling tested the interrelation between them. Results: The final model fitted the data acceptably (χ2 = 25.79, degrees of freedom = 17, P = 0.08, root mean square error of approximation = 0.05, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.98, adjusted GFI [AGFI] = 0.95, parsimony GFI [PGFI] = 0.46, normed fit index = 0.94, comparative fit index = 0.98). Poor communication contributed to less preparation for death and caregiver burden, which further aggravate AG. Communication was positively associated with AG. In addition, communication and positive coping style interacted to further influence caregiver burden. Conclusions: Preliminary results supported the model and showed that poor communication, less preparation for death, and caregiver burden contributed to AG while positive coping alleviated AG. Findings suggest the need for further studies to explore effective intervention for communication, preparation for death, burden, and coping style of caregivers to ultimately alleviate AG.

Keywords: Anticipatory grief, cancer, communication, family caregivers, proactive coping, social support, structural equation model


How to cite this article:
Yu W, Lu Q, Lu Y, Yang H, Zhang L, Guo R, Hou X. Anticipatory Grief among Chinese Family Caregivers of Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2021;8:369-76

How to cite this URL:
Yu W, Lu Q, Lu Y, Yang H, Zhang L, Guo R, Hou X. Anticipatory Grief among Chinese Family Caregivers of Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 20];8:369-76. Available from: https://www.apjon.org/text.asp?2021/8/4/369/317347




  Introduction Top


Anticipatory grief (AG) is defined as the process of mourning, coping, planning, psychosocial reorganization, and their interactions triggered by loss.[1] About one-third of family caregivers (FCGs) of patients with life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, experience AG.[2] While AG is posit to be a natural progression when caring for terminally ill relatives, the effects are nonetheless debilitating for FCGs who must learn to cope during the process. This is especially significant given the increase in end-of-life home care.[3]

The grief literature has grown exponentially since introduction of the concept by clinicians Cobbs and Lindemann following the Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire in Boston, USA, in 1942.[4] Research in AG has since expanded to encompass several social phenomena, albeit there are still only a few intervention studies focused on FCGs of patients with cancer.[3],[5],[6] The reason may be a lack of thorough understanding or consensus on the influencing factors of AG, focused on patients' disease-related and demographic factors.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] Disease-related and demographic factors contribute to screening high-risk groups, but it is difficult to plan interventions which are conducive to improve AG.

The exploration of psychosocial factors is therefore important, as are studies that explore the relationship between psychosocial factors and AG.[16] Preparation for death, as a psychosocial factor, is usually defined as the present and future readiness of the impending death of a patient by the caregiver, and encompasses cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.[17] Preparation helps to facilitate the grieving process and reduce the grief reaction.[18],[19] A nationwide population-based cohort study showed that the preparation for death was associated with AG.[14] At the same time, caregiver burden, communication avoidance, and coping style were related to AG.[14],[20],[21] Although these studies provided opportunities for AG intervention, the mechanism of interaction between AG and these factors has not been clarified and so precise intervention tends to be unconducive.

In the real world, AG is not directly affected by a single variable but produced by the interplay of variables. Research showed that self-distraction of coping was related to caregiver burden.[22] Since AG was associated with caregiver's burden and coping styles, it can be hypothesized that coping styles mediate caregiver's burden and AG. In addition, it can also be inferred that caregiver's burden may be a mediator between preparation for death and AG, and between communication and AG. Studies have shown that less preparation for death means a greater care burden, as communication was significantly associated with caregiver burden.[23],[24] Finally, at the patient's end-of-life, caregivers usually need a great deal of information to eliminate uncertainty and complete preparation for death. Communication is a prerequisite for doing this, and so good communication facilitates FCG's preparation for death.[25] Correspondingly, we hypothesized that preparation for death is a mediator between communication and AG. Unfortunately, no known research has tested these hypotheses and the mechanism.

This research was inspired by Stroebe's integrative risk factor framework for the prediction of bereavement outcome, which indicates that five interlinked elements combine to describe and determine the sources of individual differences in adjustment to bereavement.[26] According to the literature review, we hypothesized that coping style, communication, preparation for death, and care burden are related to AG. At the same time, care burden is a mediator between preparation for death and AG, communication and AG, and coping style and AG [Figure 1]. Accordingly, this study aims to explore the interrelationship between these psychosocial factors and AG in order to lay the foundation for effective interventions to alleviate AG.
Figure 1: Hypothesized model

Click here to view



  Methods Top


Study design

This was a descriptive cross-sectional research design, using a self-administered questionnaire to collect data on factors related to caregivers' AG: preparation for death, communication, care burden, and coping style. Ethical approvals were received from the institutional review board of Peking University Cancer Hospital, China, (Approval No. 2018KT25). All participants gave written informed consent.

Participants

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted between April 2018 and May 2019. A convenience sample was recruited from an academic cancer hospital in Beijing, China. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) age ≥18 years, (b) primary FCG designate of a patient with stage IV solid tumor, (c) time of care lasting ≥2 months, (d) awareness of the patient's disease condition, and (e) volunteer for this study. We excluded persons unable to complete the questionnaire due to cognitive impairment, communication disorders, or weakness.

Of the 305 potential participants who were screened, 268 were recruited, and 256 were ultimately included in the final analysis [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Sample inclusion flowchart

Click here to view


Measurements

Sociodemographic of caregivers and the disease of patients

A self-designed questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data of caregiver participants including age, gender, education, marital status, relationship with the patient, and patient's cancer types.

Anticipatory grief

AG was assessed using the Chinese version of the AG Scale, which was developed by Theut and modified by Xin.[13],[25] It consisted of 27 items, including seven subscales: guilt (4 items), anger (3 items), anxiety (4 items), irritability (4 items), sadness (4 items), feeling of loss (5 items), and decreased ability to function at usual tasks (3 items). The items were scored on five-point Likert scales that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree to measure the AG level. Higher scores reflected a higher level of AG. The content validity index (CVI) was 0.963, Cronbach's α = 0.896, and Cronbach's α for the subscales ranged between 0.788 and 0.896.[13]

Caregiver burden

Caregiver burden was assessed using the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA), which was developed by Given and modified by Zheng.[27],[28] The CRA consisted of 24 items, including five subscales: impact on finances (3 items), impact on health (4 items), impact on schedule (5 items), lack of family support (5 items), and caregiver's esteem (7 items). The items were scored on five-point Likert scales that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree; the average score of each subscale was calculated separately. Higher scores of the first four subscales reflected a heavier caregiver burden; higher scores of caregiver's esteem subscale reflected a lighter caregiver burden. The CVI for subscales ranged between 0.9 and 1.0, and the Cronbach's α for subscales ranged between 0.612 and 0.732.[28]

Coping style

Coping style was assessed using the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ), which was developed by Xie and consisted of 20 items, including two subscales: positive coping and negative coping.[29] A score of 0 to 3 was given for never adopted, occasionally adopted, sometimes adopted, and frequently adopted. The higher score of a subscale meant a more inclination to choose this coping style. The test–retest reliability of the SCSQ = 0.89; the Cronbach's α = 0.90, and the Cronbach's α for subscales = 0.89 and 0.78.[29]

Communication

Communication was assessed using the Caregivers' Communication with Patients about Illness and Death (CCID) Scale. The CCID consists of five items scored on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from “not at all” to “maximum yes” and measures the communication level between caregivers and patients concerning illness and death.[30] Higher scores reflected lower levels of communication. Cronbach's α was 0.91. Following the Brislin model,[31] we translated the CCID. The CVI for the Chinese version of the CCID was 1.00, and Cronbach's α was 0.847.

Preparation for death

A single item based on previous studies of preparedness was used to measure this construct.[14],[32] The single-item question “To what extent do you think you have prepared for the patient's death?” was used to directly measure caregivers' preparation for death. It was scored on a five-point Likert scale that included none, insufficient, sufficient, more sufficient, and complete.

Data collection and statistical analysis

The researcher screened patients with advanced cancer through the Hospital Information Management System and then surveyed patients about who were their primary FCGs. Before entering the study, all participants were informed about the nature and the purpose of the study. They volunteered to participate and signed an informed consent form, and their autonomy to withdraw at any time of this study was respected. Participants were asked about uncompleted items to maximize the completeness of the questionnaire. Ultimately, final questionnaires that were ≥90% complete were included in the statistical analysis.

GPower 3.1 was used to test whether the sample size was sufficient. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was used to verify the test efficiency, with α = 0.05, two tails, and an effect size of d = 0.5.[33] The power (1-β) was 0.9999, thus verifying that the sample size was sufficient.

The IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corp., USA) was used for data analysis. Less than 2% of the data were missing; results from Little's MCAR test showed that these values were missing completely at random (P > 0.05). The missing data were replaced by mean imputation. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation were used for statistical analysis. The hypothesized model [Figure 1] was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) with IBM SPSS AMOS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., USA). We treated the ordered categorical variable preparation for death as a continuous variable.[34] Maximum likelihood estimation was used for parameter estimation. The ratio of cases to model parameters for SEM recommends should be more than 10:1.[35] In this study, 256 cases were available to test a model with 10 parameters for a ratio of 25:1, which was acceptable. The model fit indices were as follows: Chi-square (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), P (probability level), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted GFI (AGFI), parsimony GFI (PGFI), normed fit index (NFI), and comparative fit index (CFI).

The critical value for GFI, AGFI, NFI, and CFI is 0.90 or higher.[35] Low values (between 0 and 0.08) for RMSEA and above 0.05 for PGFI indicate a good fitting model.[35] Low value (<5.00) for χ2/df and low nonsignificant values are preferred.[35]


  Results Top


Demographics of caregivers and the disease of patients

The demographics of caregivers and the disease of patients are shown in [Table 1]. Of all 256 participants, the average age was 49.10 ± 12.87 and the majority were female (63.28%) and spouse of the patients (58.98%).
Table 1: Sociodemographic of caregivers and the disease of patients (n=256)

Click here to view


Descriptions and correlations of major variables

The mean, standard deviation, and correlation of major variables are shown in [Table 2]. The variables followed the normal distribution. Caregivers experienced a moderate-to-upper level of AG. Caregivers had a high level of esteem and a mild lack of family support. Meanwhile, caregivers suffered moderate financial problems and mild health problems. The schedule was moderately impacted because of patient care. Caregivers exhibited both positive and negative coping but were more inclined to choose positive coping styles. Finally, caregivers rarely communicated the disease and death with patients and made little preparation for death.
Table 2: Descriptions and correlations of major variables

Click here to view


Analysis of the correlations revealed that there existed significant relationships between AG and other variables, and between impact on schedule and other variables. Caregiver's esteem was significant related to impact on health, impact on schedule, lack of family support, and preparation for death. Impact on health was related to all caregiver burdens, communication, and AG. Impact on finances was related to positive coping, communication, preparation for death, AG, and all caregiver burdens except for esteem. Lack of family support was associated with all other variables except preparation for death. Positive coping was associated to negative coping, AG, and caregiver burden expect esteem. Negative coping was positively associated with AG, impact on schedule, lack of family support, and positive coping. Poor communication presented a significant correlation with severer AG and heavier caregiver burdens except esteem. Preparation for death presented a significant correlation with milder AG, lower esteem, less impact on schedule, and less impact on finances.

Test of the hypothesized model

Although the hypothesized model fitted the data acceptably, the model fitting index was poor [χ2 = 26.462, df = 16, P = 0.048, [Table 3]]. P < 0.05 indicated that the model was inconsistent with the covariance data.
Table 3: Fitting indicators of the model

Click here to view


According to the literature review, clinical experience, and the principle of model modification, the hypothesized model was revised. The final model excluded a path than the hypothesized model: the direct path from preparation for death to caregiver's burden was suggested by covariance analysis and included one additional path: a direct path between positive coping and communication was suggested and seemed theoretically reasonable. The caregiver burden, as the latent variable, was fitted by subscales of impact on health, impact on schedule, impact on finances, and lack of family support, which accounted for 17.3% of the variation rate in the caregiver burden. At the same time, the coping style only indicated positive coping, excluding negative coping. The final model had a better fitting index [[Figure 3], χ2 = 25.79, df = 17, P = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.05, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.95, PGFI = 0.46, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.98].
Figure 3: Test of hypothesized model

Click here to view


[Table 4] shows the path coefficient. Direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Caregiver burden and preparation for death mediated communication and AG. Communication had a significant positive direct effect on caregiver burden (β = 0.35) and AG (β = 0.14) and a significant negative direct effect on preparation for death (β = −0.12). Preparation for death had a significant negative direct effect on AG (β = −0.19), and caregiver burden had a significant positive direct effect on AG (β = 0.70). Positive coping had a significant negative direct effect on caregiver burden (β = −0.19) and was negatively associated with communication (β = −0.12). Collectively, 62.7% of the variance in AG was explained by the final model.
Table 4: Effect estimates of the final model

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


This study explored the interrelationship between four psychosocial factors and AG in order to establish the groundwork for effective interventions to alleviate AG. We use SEM to show the causal relationships between these variables along with 256 FCGs of terminally ill cancer patients. The following is a discussion of findings:

The results indicate communication between advanced cancer patients and their caregivers had a direct effect on caregiver burden and preparation for death. Caregiver burden and preparation for death in turn had a direct effect on AG. Meanwhile, communication also directly affected AG. Positive coping was shown to have an indirect effect on AG through FCGs' burden and was associated with communication. Overall, the study provides an increased understanding of the interrelationship between AG, preparation for death, communication, caregiver burden, and positive coping. We posit that the findings may provide suggestions for health-care providers to help develop effective interventions to alleviate AG.

In this study, caregiver burden presented as economic pressure, disrupted schedules, health deterioration, and lack of family support. First, FCGs have to deal with the cycle of cancer diagnosis and treatment which could be long and expensive, and invariably lead to increased financial pressure.[36] Second, complicated cancer diagnosis and treatment process, as well as the continuous increase in care tasks, along with the deterioration of the patient's condition, result in FCGs needing to spend more time and energy on patient care.[5] This invariably disrupts the original life plan and contributes to poor health status. At the same time, social stigma of cancer being the result of bad behaviors affects not only the patients but also their caregivers.[37] As a result, the FCGs lack social support, including family support.[38] In addition, Chinese people's habit of self-containment inhibits proper social support for FCGs, further exasperating feelings of social isolation.

It is noteworthy that caregiver burden, as a mediator, was directly affected by communication and positive coping, which then affected AG. We also found that caregiver burden was positively associated with AG. This is probably because the heavier the caregiver burden, the heavier the physiological and psychosocial loss, in instances where loss causes AG. Here, the health-care provider could alleviate AG through intervening to alleviate the caregiver burden, through assistance, such as home-based palliative care, mindfulness-based stress reduction, and emotion regulation therapy.[39],[40],[41]

The result revealed communication between patients and their FGCs about cancer and death was positively related to caregiver burden, and caregiver burden was also positively related to AG. In traditional Chinese culture, talking about death is a taboo and people can often make decisions for others through the “principle of beneficence,” that means to protect others by force, commonly known as “for your own good.”[42] Hence, caregivers who are hesitant or ignorant about communicating with the patients to obtain their opinion, act as the agent and tend to make decisions for the patients based on their own understanding and perspective of the disease or from the perspective of social customs and concepts. Further, persons influenced by Confucianism believe that filial piety is measured by the length of life, often ignoring the quality of parents' lives.[43] Consequently, it is common to see that adult children try their best to prolong the life of parents regardless of financial resources, manpower, time, and parents' quality of life in clinical practice. Poor communication increases unnecessary burden and AG. Conversely, poor communication exacerbates caregivers' psychological distress (i.e., depression and emotional exhaustion), which may lead caregivers to experience high levels of AG.[14],[44] It is suggested that health-care providers strengthen caregivers' communication desire and skills, and conduct randomized-controlled studies to verify the effectiveness of interventions.

Interestingly, only positive coping had an indirect effect on AG through the caregiver burden. It is well known that coping is an important moderator between stress and outcomes.[45] The stressors for many FCGs came from the patient's cancer diagnosis, disease progression, and death. Caregivers, who expressed positive coping actively, sought ways to relieve stress and engaged in activities that helped with distraction, as they struggled to cope, and/or sought advice from others, which helped to decrease the burden and thus moderate the severity of AG. The final model in our study displayed that positive coping was negatively related to AG. However, studies observed the interrelationship between coping, caregiver burden, and AG.[14],[21],[46] Thus, the relationship between the three needs to be confirmed by further research.

The results showed preparation for death mediated communication and AG. Barriers to end-of-life planning can include lack of knowledge, uncertainty about illness prognosis, and ineffective communication.[19] FCGs who make little or no preparation for the patient's death may experience AG.[15] For example, families frequently experienced psychological distress and disturbance when attempting to manage or sort funeral affairs in the event of an emergency or unexpected death.[19] Less communication impedes patients' perception of illness and prognosis and caregivers' understanding of patients' wishes.[19] By communicating effectively with the patients, caregivers can arrange to handle patients' affairs before and after their death, thus reducing psychological distress and AG. It is suggested that health-care providers improve not only communication between caregivers and patients but also caregivers' knowledge and perception of patient prognosis and provide available resources through education and then improve the physical, psychological, and behavioral aspects of the caregiver's death preparation.

Limitations

This study had a few limitations. First, this is a cross-sectional study, and so it confines explanations of the causal relationship between stated variables. Second, the study was conducted in one cancer center using convenience sampling to recruit participants, thus limiting generalization due to potential selection bias and the representativeness of the sample. Then, the measurement of death preparation is limited by the tools available and the need to develop a mature and comprehensive scale. Last, demographic variables were not included in SEMs, and the influence of demographic variables on AG may be further analyzed in future studies.


  Conclusions Top


This preliminary study supported the final model and showed that poor communication, less preparation for death, and caregiver burden contributed to AG while positive coping helped alleviate AG. Further studies should be conducted to explore effective interventions for communication, preparation for death, burden, and coping style of caregivers, to ultimately alleviate AG for FCGs in China and globally.

Acknowledgments

The author(s) are grateful to the participants who agreed to participate in this study. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance from TopEdit in the preparation of the manuscript.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Rando TA. Anticipatory grief: The term is a misnomer but the phenomenon exists. J Palliat Care 1988;4:70-3.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Nielsen MK, Neergaard MA, Jensen AB, Bro F, Guldin MB. Psychological distress, health, and socio-economic factors in caregivers of terminally ill patients: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:3057-67.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Toyama H, Honda A. Using narrative approach for anticipatory grief among family caregivers at home. Glob Qual Nurs Res 2016;3:1-15.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Fulton G, Madden C, Minichiello V. The social construction of anticipatory grief. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1349-58.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Coelho A, de Brito M, Teixeira P, Frade P, Barros L, Barbosa A. Family caregivers' anticipatory grief: A conceptual framework for understanding its multiple challenges. Qual Health Res 2020;30:693-703.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hottensen D. Anticipatory grief in patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2010;14:106-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sautter JP, Steinhauser KP, Tulsky JM. Anticipatory grief among family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (751). J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;43:450-1.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Marwit SJ, Meuser TM. Development and initial validation of an inventory to assess grief in caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease. Gerontologist 2002;42:751-65.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Marwit SJ, Chibnall JT, Dougherty R, Jenkins C, Shawgo J. Assessing pre-death grief in cancer caregivers using the Marwit-Meuser Caregiver Grief Inventory (MM-CGI). Psychooncology 2008;17:300-3.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Al-Gamal E, Long T. Anticipatory grieving among parents living with a child with cancer. J Adv Nurs 2010;66:1980-90.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Areia NP, Fonseca G, Major S, Relvas AP. Psychological morbidity in family caregivers of people living with terminal cancer: Prevalence and predictors. Palliat Support Care 2019;17:286-93.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Liu NC, Lai EY. Find a way out: Bereavement support in Taiwan hospice. Support Care Cancer 2006;14:4-10.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Xin DJ. Study on grief of advanced cancer patients and their families [dissertation]. Luzhou: Southwest Medical University; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Nielsen MK, Neergaard MA, Jensen AB, Vedsted P, Bro F, Guldin MB. Preloss grief in family caregivers during end-of-life cancer care: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Psychooncology 2017;26:2048-56.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Burke LA, Clark KA, Ali KS, Gibson BW, Smigelsky MA, Neimeyer RA. Risk factors for anticipatory grief in family members of terminally Ill veterans receiving palliative care services. J Soc Work End Life Palliat Care 2015;11:244-66.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Coelho A, Barbosa A. Family anticipatory Grief: An integrative literature review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2017;34:774-85.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Breen LJ, Aoun SM, O'Connor M, Howhing D, Halkett GK. Family caregivers' preparations for death: A qualitative analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2018;55:1473-79.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Liu Y, van Schalkwyk GJ. Death preparation of Chinese rural elders. Death Stud 2019;43:270-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Banner D, Freeman S, Kandola DK, Meikle M, Russell BKM, Sommerfeld EA, et al. Community perspectives of end-of-life preparedness. Death Stud 2019;43:211-23.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Wang PZ. The correlations of coping styles and anticipatory grief in spouses of advanced breast cancer patients. Mod Clin Nurs 2019;18:8-11.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Teixeira RJ, Applebaum AJ, Bhatia S, Brandão T. The impact of coping strategies of cancer caregivers on psychophysiological outcomes: An integrative review. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2018;11:207-15.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Chivukula U, Kota S, Nandinee D. Burden experience of caregivers of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Impact of coping and spirituality. Indian J Palliat Care 2018;24:189-95.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Shin JY, Lim JW, Shin DW, Kim SY, Yang HK, Cho J, et al. Underestimated caregiver burden by cancer patients and its association with quality of life, depression and anxiety among caregivers. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2018;27:e12814.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Hebert RS, Schulz R, Copeland VC, Arnold RM. Preparing family caregivers for death and bereavement. Insights from caregivers of terminally ill patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009;37:3-12.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Theut SK, Jordan L, Ross LA, Deutsch SI. Caregiver's anticipatory grief in dementia: A pilot study. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1991;33:113-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Stroebe MS, Folkman S, Hansson RO, Schut H. The prediction of bereavement outcome: Development of an integrative risk factor framework. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:2440-51.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Given CW, Given B, Stommel M, Collins C, King S, Franklin S. The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for caregivers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Res Nurs Health 1992;15:271-83.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Zheng YP, Lou Y, Wang HQ. Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Caregiver Reaction Assessment. Chin J Nurs 2008;43:856-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Xie YN. The preliminary study on the reliability and validity of the simple coping style scale. Chin J Clin Psychol 1998;6:53-4.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bachner YG, Gesis-Za, Davidov E, Carmel S. Caregivers' communication with patients about illness and death: Initial validation of a scale. Omega (Westport) 2008;57:381-97.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Guo JY, Li Z. The introduction process of scale and its evaluation standards. Chin J Nurs 2012;47:283-5.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Schulz R, Boerner K, Klinger J, Rosen J. Preparedness for death and adjustment to bereavement among caregivers of recently placed nursing home residents. J Palliat Med 2015;18:127-33.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
DiStefano C. The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Struct Equ Modeling 2002;9:327-46.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Wu ML. Structural Equation Modeling-Operation and Application of AMSO. 2nd ed. Chongqing Municipality: Chongqing University Press; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-65.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Occhipinti S, Dunn J, O'Connell DL, Garvey G, Valery PC, Ball D, et al. Lung cancer stigma across the social network: Patient and caregiver perspectives. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:1443-53.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Johnson LA, Schreier AM, Swanson M, Moye JP, Ridner S. Stigma and quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2019;46:318-28.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Pereira-Morales AJ, Valencia LE, Rojas L. Impact of the caregiver burden on the effectiveness of a home-based palliative care program: A mediation analysis. Palliat Support Care 2020;18:332-8.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
van den Hurk DG, Schellekens MP, Molema J, Speckens AE, van der Drift MA. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for lung cancer patients and their partners: Results of a mixed methods pilot study. Palliat Med 2015;29:652-60.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Applebaum AJ, Panjwani AA, Buda K, O'Toole MS, Hoyt MA, Garcia A, et al. Emotion regulation therapy for cancer caregivers-an open trial of a mechanism-targeted approach to addressing caregiver distress. Transl Behav Med 2020;10:413-22.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Zhang XQ, Wang YL, Han YH, Zhu MX, Qiao K, Wang YQ. The third of series of discussions on “Life Dignity”:The dignity of end-stage patient. Chin Med Ethics 2018;31:28-34.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Zhu ZG, Zhou Y, Chen Y. The influence of Chinese traditional ethical culture on hospice care. Chin J Gerontol 2015;35:6302-3.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Bachner YG, O'Rourke N, Carmel S. Fear of death, mortality communication, and psychological distress among secular and religiously observant family caregivers of terminal cancer patients. Death Stud 2011;35:163-87.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Dunkel-Schetter C, DeLongis A, Gruen RJ. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;50:992-1003.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Faronbi JO. Correlate of burden and coping ability of caregivers of older adults with chronic illness in Nigeria. Scand J Caring Sci 2018;32:1288-96.  Back to cited text no. 46
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed178    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]