Poster (Knowledge Generation) ID 1969461

IF 2.4 Q1 REHABILITATION
S. Mohammadi, Victoria Bogle, Heather F. Cathcart, Sarah Park, William C. Miller
{"title":"Poster (Knowledge Generation) ID 1969461","authors":"S. Mohammadi, Victoria Bogle, Heather F. Cathcart, Sarah Park, William C. Miller","doi":"10.46292/sci23-1969461s","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals with SCI often receive care from their family members. Caregiving responsibilities lead to caregiver burden. Receiving social support may mitigate the negative impacts of caregiving. Caregivers can obtain support from people they meet in-person, such as family members and people with whom they interact through social platforms. Our objective was to investigate the moderating effect of in-person and online social supports on the association between relationship quality, caregiver competence, caregiver distress and caregiver burden. 115 caregivers who resided in Canada or the United States, understood and spoke English, and self-identified as primary family caregivers of an individual with SCI were sampled. Participants completed measures assessing relationship quality, competence, distress, burden, and in-person and online social support. Three separate moderation analyses for each outcome variable (i.e. relationship quality, competence, and distress), were conducted. In analyses, burden was the predictor, and online and in-person support were moderators. Moderation analyses showed that online support moderates the link between caregiver burden and distress. Slope analyses revealed that the positive relationship between burden and distress was weaker when caregivers reported lower levels of online support (p=0.005); this relationship was more robust when caregivers reported higher levels of online support (p <.001). Other moderation analyses were not statistically significant. Online support increases distress in family caregivers. It is likely that comparing their life with other caregivers or being exposed to other caregivers’ grief negatively affects caregivers. More research is needed to understand how online support impacts caregivers negatively.","PeriodicalId":46769,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46292/sci23-1969461s","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals with SCI often receive care from their family members. Caregiving responsibilities lead to caregiver burden. Receiving social support may mitigate the negative impacts of caregiving. Caregivers can obtain support from people they meet in-person, such as family members and people with whom they interact through social platforms. Our objective was to investigate the moderating effect of in-person and online social supports on the association between relationship quality, caregiver competence, caregiver distress and caregiver burden. 115 caregivers who resided in Canada or the United States, understood and spoke English, and self-identified as primary family caregivers of an individual with SCI were sampled. Participants completed measures assessing relationship quality, competence, distress, burden, and in-person and online social support. Three separate moderation analyses for each outcome variable (i.e. relationship quality, competence, and distress), were conducted. In analyses, burden was the predictor, and online and in-person support were moderators. Moderation analyses showed that online support moderates the link between caregiver burden and distress. Slope analyses revealed that the positive relationship between burden and distress was weaker when caregivers reported lower levels of online support (p=0.005); this relationship was more robust when caregivers reported higher levels of online support (p <.001). Other moderation analyses were not statistically significant. Online support increases distress in family caregivers. It is likely that comparing their life with other caregivers or being exposed to other caregivers’ grief negatively affects caregivers. More research is needed to understand how online support impacts caregivers negatively.
海报(知识生成)ID 1969461
SCI 患者通常会得到家人的照顾。护理责任导致护理负担。获得社会支持可以减轻护理的负面影响。照护者可以从亲身接触的人那里获得支持,如家庭成员和通过社交平台与他们互动的人。 我们的目的是研究亲身和在线社会支持对关系质量、照顾者能力、照顾者痛苦和照顾者负担之间关系的调节作用。 我们抽取了居住在加拿大或美国、能听懂并说英语、自我认同为 SCI 患者主要家庭照顾者的 115 名照顾者。参与者完成了对关系质量、能力、痛苦、负担以及现场和在线社会支持的评估。针对每个结果变量(即关系质量、能力和痛苦)分别进行了三项调节分析。在分析中,负担是预测因子,在线支持和亲身支持是调节因子。 调节分析表明,在线支持调节了照顾者负担与痛苦之间的联系。斜率分析表明,当照顾者报告的在线支持水平较低时,负担与痛苦之间的正相关关系较弱(p=0.005);当照顾者报告的在线支持水平较高时,这种关系更为稳固(p <.001)。其他调节分析在统计意义上并不显著。 在线支持会增加家庭照顾者的痛苦。将自己的生活与其他照顾者进行比较或接触其他照顾者的悲伤情绪很可能会对照顾者产生负面影响。要了解在线支持如何对照顾者产生负面影响,还需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Now in our 22nd year as the leading interdisciplinary journal of SCI rehabilitation techniques and care. TSCIR is peer-reviewed, practical, and features one key topic per issue. Published topics include: mobility, sexuality, genitourinary, functional assessment, skin care, psychosocial, high tetraplegia, physical activity, pediatric, FES, sci/tbi, electronic medicine, orthotics, secondary conditions, research, aging, legal issues, women & sci, pain, environmental effects, life care planning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信