Who cares for carers?

Embed Size (px)

Text of Who cares for carers?

  • This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 04:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

    AphasiologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/paph20

    Who cares for carers?Tim PringPublished online: 31 Aug 2010.

    To cite this article: Tim Pring (1999) Who cares for carers?, Aphasiology, 13:12,914-917, DOI: 10.1080/026870399401687

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870399401687

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the Content) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/paph20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/026870399401687http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870399401687

  • and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    The

    Aga

    Kha

    n U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    04:

    44 1

    1 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

    http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • 914 Clinical Forum

    Gailey, G. and Stiell 1995, Cotherapy with couples aected by aphasia in ` family perspectives fromthree aphasia centers . Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation , 2, 3.

    Gitterman, A. and Shulman, L. 1986,Mutual Aid Groups and the Life Cycle (F. E. Peacock : Itasia,Illinois).

    Gainotti, G. 1997, Emotional, psychological and psychosocial problems of aphasic patients : anintroduction. Aphasiology, 11, 635650.

    Kagan, A. and Gailey, G. 1993, Functional is not enough: training conversation partners foraphasic adults. In A. L. Holland and M. M. Forbes (Eds)Aphasia Treatment: World Perspectives(San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group).

    Lyon, H. G., Carisk, D., Keisler, L., Rosenbek, J., Levine, R., Kumpala, J., Ryff, C., Coyne, S.and Blanc, M. 1997, Communication partners: enhancing participation in life andcommunication for adults with aphasia in natural settings. Aphasiology, 11, 693708.

    Patterson, R., Paul, M., Wells, A., Hoen, B. and Thelander, M. 1994, Aphasia a New Life(Coopershill Publishing Inc. Toronto, Canada).

    Rolland, J. 1994, Families, Illness and Disability (Basic Books: New York).Sarno, M. T. 1997, Quality of life in the rst post-stroke year. Aphasiology, 11, 665679.Wells, A. and Patterson, R. 1995, Involving the family in planning for life with aphasia in `family

    perspectives from three aphasia centers . Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation , 2, 3.Walsh, F. and McGoldrick, M. (Eds) 1991, Living Beyond Loss (W. W. Norton: New York).

    Who cares for carers ?

    TIM PRING

    Department of Clinical Communication Studies, City University, London, UK

    Servaes et al.s review of the literature on the carers of people with aphasia is timelyand useful. Timely because it appears when clinicians are showing increasedconcern about the psychological costs of caring for people with dysphasia. Usefulbecause it reveals some of the problems in investigating these costs and in assessingthe eects of oering assistance to carers.The review covers three areas of research. Studies of the problems of carers of

    people with aphasia, studies which compare these problems with those of carersof stroke victims without aphasia and studies of interventions with the carers ofpeople with aphasia. The rst seeks to dene the problems, the second addresseswhether communication problems add to or present special diculties and the lastexamines whether interventions are successful. Behind these issues are moregeneral questions concerning the feasibility of oering assistance and the identityof those health professionals who are able or qualied to oer it. The overallmessage is that we dont know very much.Given the extended period of time from which studies are drawn, the most

    surprising nding is that so few have taken place. Indeed, studies of interventionswith other elderly people with disabilities are added to the last category to increasethe information available. The shortage of research may reect the methodologicalproblems inherent in studies of this kind. Servaes et al. are critical of the failure touse random samples and the lack of blind assessments. Random samples arenecessary because, as the authors point out, variables such as time post onset andseverity of dysphasia eect the burden on carers. Studies must either use random

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    The

    Aga

    Kha

    n U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    04:

    44 1

    1 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Clinical Forum 915

    selection so as to fully represent this variation or restrict themselves to specicgroups and caution readers about over generalisation of the ndings. Furthersources of variation may reside in the carers themselves. This issue is addressedbelow.In contrast with the relatively few reports specically about caring in dysphasia,

    research into care giving generally is suciently well developed as to be referred toas a `ourishing enterprise (Pearlin et al. 1990). Consequently there are studies ofother groups of carers who may be of interest because they share some of theproblems of carers of people with dysphasia. These include carers of people withhead injuries (Allen et al. 1994), people with dementia (Hooker et al. 1994, McKeeet al. 1997) and people with multiple sclerosis (Knight et al. 1997).Studies of the burden experienced by carers have used a variety ofmethodologies.

    Interviews have been popular with carers of people with aphasia (see table 1 inServaes et al.). Alternatives are measures which assess health or quality of life (seeBowling 1997 for a review of such measures). These studies are relatively easy tocarry out but the results may be less than clear. It would be surprising if carers werenot to report that caring has psychological costs. The studies conrm that they dobut, by using a variety of measures, give a rather piecemeal picture of its nature.Interviews identify a selection of problems, some rather vaguely described, andmay be unclear as to their severity or priority. They are also an unreliable measurefor evaluating interventions. Use of specic measures such as the Beck DepressionInventory (Beck et al. 1961) or the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg andWilliams 1988) provide a more tangible indication of particular aspects of theproblem and by having normative data, can give an indication of its seriousness anda means of assessing change. However, the use of a wide variety of measures, somepublished and standardized, others home-made, makes comparisons across studiesdicult.Intervention studies in this area often use what the authors call ` convenience

    samples. It is easy to imagine how this may arise. Clinicians implement a service toadvise and counsel carers. The approach is largely atheoretical (since little theoryexists) and develops through experience. It is perceived to be helpful and a studyis implemented to assess it. The sample is likely to be small, may be self selecting,will lack an adequate control and assessment of the potential gains is unlikely to beconducted by blind or objective means. It is hard not to sympathize with cliniciansin this situation. Their intentions are entirely honourable and the alternative,which involves random assignment and blind assessment, is fraught with practicaland ethical problems. Nevertheless we should be cautious about the results of suchstudies. Even if we are inclined to believe that an intervention is eective, it maybe dicult to reproduce what may be highly individual and unsystematicapproaches in other clinical settings.Eorts to assess the eects of interventions with the carers of people with

    dysphasia face many of the problems of assessing therapy for dysphasia itself. Thereare diculties in measuring the burden of care giving and changes in it. Thisburden may also change with time much as dysphasia may undergo spontaneousrecovery. There may be problems dening the nature of the interventions used andin nding appropriate controls if randomized control trials are to be used as Servaeset al. recommend.It should also be recognized that carers vary in their abilities to cope and,

    consequently, in their need for assistance. In reviewing studies which compare the

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    The

    Aga

    Kha

    n U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    04:

    44 1

    1 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 916 Clinical Forum

    carers of stroke victims with and wi