Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 17;18(4):e0265297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265297

Burden and resources in caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative study

Stefano Benini 1, Erika Pellegrini 1, Carlo Descovich 1, Alessandra Lugaresi 2,3,*
Editor: Habil Otanga4
PMCID: PMC10109507  PMID: 37068110

Abstract

Background

Caregivers of people with Multiple Sclerosis are required to provide ongoing assistance especially during the advanced stages of the disease. They have to manage interventions and assume responsibilities which significantly impact both their personal quality of life and family’s dynamics.

Objective

A qualitative phenomenological study was carried out to understand the experience of burden in caregivers and their resources to manage it. The study also explores how healthcare services involved in the Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pathway respond to the needs of well-being of patients and family members.

Methods

17 caregivers were involved in focus groups and in semi-structured individual interviews.

Results

Fatigue is experienced by all respondents and it starts when physical disabilities increase or when people become aware of them. Many caregivers declare that they refer to intrinsic (love towards their relatives, patience and dedication) or extrinsic (family members, hobbies) resources to cope with the burden of assistance. Patient associations and the Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pathway play a significant role in supporting caregivers.

Conclusions

Fatigue, loneliness, and isolation are experienced by caregivers and strongly affect their quality of life and health status. The study highlights caregivers’ need to reconcile working times with care times, to give more space to self-care and to have moments to share their experiences with someone else. These needs should be at the core of health policies in order to avoid physical and emotional breakdowns which could lead to the rupture of the relational balance on which home care is based.

1. Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is often characterized by increasing disability over time, despite treatment. The variable disease course and symptoms require a multidisciplinary approach and MS Care Units include different healthcare professionals, who share standardized procedures. The MS Care Unit should offer a personalized pathway, offering specific case and care managers, who can provide information, support and advice to the individual MS patient [1].

Highly specialised interventions prevail in the initial stages of the disease. This initial care is provided mainly in the hospital setting. As the disease progresses, treatment strategies are integrated with social care and rehabilitation interventions, mainly at home or in its proximity.

The opportunity for the person with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) to stay at home is made possible thanks to the implementation of a strong synergistic network of cures and treatments involving health services, social care workers, volunteers from associations and family members.

Family members are often required to provide ongoing assistance, especially in the advanced stages of the disease.

Informal caregiving is provided by spouses in up to 70% of PwMS, with the remaining of care usually provided by other family members and friends [2].

Caregivers have to manage multiple interventions and assume responsibilities that significantly impact both their personal quality of life, and the family’s dynamics [3].

Caring for someone with MS can be emotionally and physically demanding and can lead to considerable stress among carers, negatively affecting their health and well-being [4]. Indeed, there is consistent evidence in the quantitative literature that MS carers’ quality of life (QoL) is poor [5]. Previous studies have demonstrated that high levels of carer burden and anxiety are strongly associated with reduced QoL [6,7]. Severity of MS symptoms (e.g., impaired mobility, bladder problems, cognitive impairment, and depression), increased carer demands. Longer hours of caregiving, are also strong predictors of poor QoL and psychological ill-being in MS carers [811].

Compared to caregivers of individuals with other chronic conditions, caregivers of PwMS often start caregiving earlier in life and may remain in this role for decades, often with increasing projected disability [12].

For example, over 80% of family caregivers of individuals with MS have reported that time required to care for their relatives meaningfully interferes with their lives including social role functioning (i.e., obligations with family, friends, and career) [13].

In the literature, unpaid caregivers are defined as hidden patients because of the physical, emotional and economic burdens they have to bear to assist their loved one, with or without the contribution of social services [14]. Addressing and accepting all the issues related to the presence of an unpredictable and long-lasting progressive disease is a source of great stress for the family members [15]. This stress increases as the physical and cognitive disabilities of the loved one progress [16].

In fact, continuous adaptation to the increasing needs for time and care leads family members to change their lifestyle and habits [17]. This process generates high levels of fatigue which, in turn, is associated with mood disorders. These can be expressed by experiencing: mixed feelings, nervous strain and depression with episodes of anger and hostility expressed towards the family member with MS [18].

The caregiver, more than any other figure who enters the field in social health [19] plays a key role in providing moral assistance and comfort to the PwMS. There must be strong investment in supporting the caregiver providing the multifaceted burden of care.

In this regard, the Clinical Pathway (CPW), for PwMS in the Local Health Authority (AUSL) of Bologna, was developed with the intention to provide concrete answers to the care and welfare needs not only of the persons affected, but also of their relevant others.

The aim of the CPW is to translate the best research evidence gathered into clinical practice recommendations adapted to local resources and specific clinical processes in order establish standard procedures for diagnosis, treatment and care for PwMS and to coordinate all parties involved in the treatment of the disease and working in large territorial areas such as Bologna.

The CPW is subdivided into three phases—1. Access and diagnosis, 2. Taking charge / healthcare in the phase of mild to moderate disability and 3. Taking charge / healthcare in the phase of severe disability. The CPW offers multidimensional care for the patient and relevant others through validated, integrated and multi-professional care plans, and pays particular attention to the continuity of social-health care and home care.

The first studies on the burden of care on the caregiver in MS date back to slightly over 20 years ago, and most of the data has been collected to understand the correlation between caregiver status and the well-being of the patient. Nevertheless it is necessary to conduct further studies to better understand the components of the burden of care and to study the effectiveness of interventions aimed at supporting caregivers in their task.

The main objectives of this research are to: a) understand the burden of care on caregivers and their the ensuing experiences, b) assess which resources the carers rely on to manage the burden of care.

How the healthcare services and workers involved in the MS CPW respond to the welfare needs of patients and family members will be the object of future research.

2. Methods

Among different approaches in this study we used a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology, [20,21] because, this approach focuses on people’s everyday life experiences and subjective phenomena and seeks to understand the meaning of these experiences [22]. The aim of this study is to identify the most relevant issues, in terms of burden and resources, needed by PwMS caregivers. Interviews included both “what” they had experienced and “how” they had coped with it [23].

This method has been successfully used in previous studies conducted with caregivers and appears as the one best suited to a qualitative approach [2427].

2.1 Participants and sampling

The caregivers of people who are in the care of the MS CPW, and who attend the local Bologna section of Italian Multiple Sclerosis Association (AISM), took part in the survey of the AUSL of Bologna. We chose AISM because in Bologna it is the association with the highest number of members and caregivers. The recruitment of eligible caregivers took place, for convenience, at the local AISM section, taking into account their willingness to participate in the survey. Caregivers were informed by the volunteers attending the AISM section in Bologna. Interviews were held until no new themes emerged (data saturation). Inclusion criteria were that caregivers were: 1) the primary informal caregiver of a PwMS; 2) 18 years of age or over; 3) Italian speaking; 4) willing to participate in the study and to sign the informed consent form and 5) had cared for a PwMS for at least 5 yr. Carers of people with a follow-up from diagnosis shorter than 5 yr were excluded.

2.2 Data collection

After caregiver enrolment, the investigator asked them if they would prefer to be interviewed within a focus group, held at the AISM headquarters, or individually, at home and appointments were made accordingly. We used the triangulation with two methods of data collection—Focus group (FG) and In-Depth interviews (IDIs)—to develop a comprehensive understanding of caregivers experiences [28]. We decided to use both FG and IDIs interviews for two reasons. The first was to enhance participation of a broader spectrum of eligible caregivers who might not otherwise be able to participate if a single method of data collection were selected. The second reason was to increase the validity of study findings through collection and triangulation of data [29].

After they had signed the informed consent form, the investigator invited the caregiver to give a narrative description of their feelings and experiences by asking the following open ended questions: “You take care of a PwMS; could you please tell me about your experience of giving care to him/her? You can answer through an image, a colour or an adjective”. “What does it mean for you to take care of a PwMS?” “What’s your experience in the MS CPW of the AUSL of Bologna and in AISM?” The same questions were asked during the focus group and interviews.

During the interview or in the focus group, the investigator adopted an empathetic attitude towards the caregivers, encouraging them to talk. When caregivers seemed to have nothing more to say, the researcher asked if they would like to add anything further. This process continued until the caregiver had nothing more to say. Each interview took between 20–60 minutes, and all interviews were audio-recorded. At the end of the interview, the investigator collected the caregiver’s socio-demographic information, such as age, gender and data from patients such as age, gender and patient’s illness duration.

2.3. Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Interviews were analysed using Colaizzi’s descriptive analysis framework [30], divided into six analytical steps. (a) Reading of interviews by two researchers (SB, EP) who listened to the audio and re-read transcripts several times to become immersed in the data; (b) Identification of significant statements; (c) Formulation and validation of meanings through team discussions (SB, EP, CD); (d) Organisation of each significant statement into meaning units and sub-themes into major themes; (e) Check of meaning units, sub-themes and themes by an expert qualitative researcher (SB); (f) Definition of overarching statements to summarise the participant’s lived experience.

The researchers kept a research diary with methodological and reflective notes. They documented all of the passages and critical junctions of the work, trying to be conscious of their own pre-understandings and adopted an approach to the data avoiding preconceived perspectives.

The research team used several strategies to ensure the accuracy of the findings. The analytic team met regularly throughout the iterative process of data analysis to reflect on ways individual values, experiences, or preconceptions might influence or create bias in interpretations of the data may have informed perceptions of participant statements and emerging themes. In addition, the analytic team wrote memos throughout the data analysis, noting observations and reactions to the interview responses. Finally, the last author (AL), who had not previously participated in data analysis, conducted an independent review of the findings and coding documents to assess the trustworthiness of the analysis.

2.4. Ethical considerations

The study has been conducted in full compliance with relevant data protection regulations.

The protocol was submitted to the attention of the local ethics committee (Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro of the Regione Emilia-Romagna (CE-AVEC)) which replied that no authorization was required as no personal data was processed in this study.

Each family member has been informed about the purpose of the study and signed the consent form for participation in the research prepared by the AUSL of Bologna for qualitative studies.

3. Results

The study started in July 2019 and ended in February 2021.

Of the 21 caregivers initially willing to participate in the study, 4 were no longer available due to deterioration of the health conditions of their relatives; of the remaining 17, 9 decided to participate in the focus group and 8 to the interviews. We held 1 single focus group due to the manageable number of participants.

Of the 17 family members involved, 14 (82.35%) were females and 3 males, with an average age of 65 years (range 49–81). There were 8 wives, 1 husband, 2 daughters, 4 siblings (3 sisters and 1 brother) and 2 parents (1 father and 1 mother) of people who had received a diagnosis of MS from 5 to 39 years earlier (Table 1). Most of the patients have a mild-to-moderate disability (EDSS 3.5–6.0), 3 have a moderate-to-severe disability(EDSS>6.0) and are in charge of the MS CPW of the Bologna Local Health Authority. Almost all of the participants live in the same home as the family member with MS.

Table 1. Characteristics of people interviewed.


Interviewed Participant (P)
Code

Age

Degree of relationship

Age of relative with MS

Age of relative with MS at diagnosis
P01 61 Sister 58 53
P02 65 Wife 68 37
P03 79 Mother 53 28
P04 81 Father
P05 67 Husband 61 35
P06 70 Wife 66 31
P07 53 Wife 54 26
P08 67 Wife 66 27
P09 73 Sister 62 26
P10 74 Wife 77 48
P11 63 Brother 52 26
P12 59 Daughter 85 60
P13 64 Wife 69 64
P14 54 Wife 57 52
P15 70 Wife 72 61
P16 49 Daughter 78 56
P17 58 Sister 52 33

From the analysis of the interviews, it was possible to identify the following themes: a) The burden of assistance and the effect of the effort; b) States of mind and concerns; c) Resources to cope with the assistance burden; d) Take charge by the MS CPW of the AUSL City of Bologna; e) The role of the Patient Association; f) The needs of family members.

The analysis of the 6 themes is reported in the following paragraphs.

Theme a: The burden of assistance and the effect of the effort

Feedback was solicited through the use of metaphorical language using the expression of an image, colour or adjective. Family members represented the burden of care, on the one hand, as very heavy and challenging, as shown by the expressions: “for me the burden of care is like an endless labyrinth”(P9), “The burden of care? Interesting….I think the burden is… grey as tiring, Yes the burden is grey! (P17) or "The colour of my burden is purple…Purple because the situation is disastrous, it is very heavy, our family is destroyed. We have a son in Sicily that we see so little (very few)… (P2). And on the other hand, as manageable, although related to the stages of the disease, expressed like “I say blue when the situation is under control, but also grey and black when there are peak periods" (P11). Although caring for a loved one at home is recognized as tiring, some gave a positive connotation to this burden "for me it is not hard" (P7) or "I say yellow because of the positivity of the colour and because he is at home and I can care for him” (P13).

Going into the details of the experiences gathered, the efforts expressed were amenable to 6 distinct issues, as depicted in Fig 1. The first and main issue was physical fatigue for the material aspects of assistance, mainly concerning personal hygiene (washing, taking to the bathroom, changing diapers, dressing/undressing), activities related to mobilization (getting up/putting to bed, transferring to the wheelchair, resettling in the wheelchair when slipping out, changing home due to the presence of architectural barriers) and, sometimes, the administration of therapy. In many cases, physical fatigue was associated with the advancing age of the caregiver and the condition of the loved one. One family member expressed: “I should be younger here, and he should be less heavy, because if he were slimmer it would require less effort. Now both in the morning, when he has to be lifted from the bed, and in the evening when he needs to be transferred from the wheelchair to bed, it is an effort difficult to manage” (P15). The second issue was difficulty in accepting the disease, the change or disability of your loved one: “I’m fatigued on a mental level, I am concerned because I remember the person in a way which is now differenthe was dynamic and an active person. He was always ready to do anything….and now he is bedridden or in a wheelchair…this is my burden….my mind can’t accept all this” (P13). The third issue was fatigue resulting from the management of care and the sense of responsibility: “My labor? I’m fatigued for all concerns: I have to make notes for everything: treatment, visits, that is, I have to take care and responsibilities for everything. Those are my main efforts! (P10). The fourth issue was fatigue due to concerns for the future: “… as long as I can, I will assist my child, because I’m his parent, but if I get sick, when I am old, and die, who will stay with him and take care of him? (P03). The fifth issue was fatigue due to having to reconcile the role of caregiver with one’s private life and work activity: “Can I speak about my constant change of role? You are the caregiver, but later you go to work and you have to be efficient, productive. The one who reasons and who is attentive. This continuous ballet of emotions, this eternal commitment, is something that today, has become a lot harder to bear” (P01). The sixth and final issue was fatigue due to lack of time for oneself and limitation of social life: “Since the disease became so patent, I have not had a day off. I never have a truce, because I’m always there. Because she is alone, here I am. I can’t stay more than 2–3 hours away from home, because she gets anxious” (P05). Another family member says: “I am smiling now because I like talking to a person I don’t know, but in my life I don’t have any social life anymore, also because when I get home I’m tired” (P08).

Fig 1. The fatigue of caregivers in assistance.

Fig 1

Although the sense of fatigue is a constant experience in all interviewees, there are occasions when it takes on a particular weight. This is the case for the efforts related to the bureaucratic management of care and assistance, such as, when you have to organize an outing for a visit, or you have to fulfil bureaucratic tasks. In this regard, some family members underlined the difficulty in starting the process of getting the disability allowance, or managing administrative activities, such as paying contributions for a caregiver. Administrative burdens may create emotional costs especially when policy processes are experienced and stressful. A wife told us: “It’s so hard when I’ve to renew the disability certificate of my husband, .few days before the assessment I start getting anxious, because I don’t’ know what will happen” (P02).

The moments of fatigue are also felt in some phases of the day, such as during direct care activities such as getting up or going to bed, in mobilization and personal hygiene. The sense of fatigue takes on a particular weight even more so when the caregiver is in a moment of particular vulnerability: the reference was done, for example, to the frustration of not being able to live a normal daily life with their loved one, as told by a wife: “When I go out and I see people of our age walking hand in hand, I get in a rage” (P14); or in the conditions of illness / deficit of the caregiver himself: “I’m afraid to get sick… Who will take care of my son when I’m not well? Who gets out of bed, for example, when I have back pain? In those cases I take anti-inflammatory drugs and I pray to recover as soon as possible” (P03). Extraordinary events are particularly tiring, such as in the case of the worsening of the health of your loved one that involves a reorganization of daily activities. “My worst fatigues are two: the first is to see my husband get worse with MS… . It is heartbreaking to see him lose his autonomy; the second is not being able to sleep in the same bed” (P08).

Inquiring about the period of onset of the state of fatigue, some say they have experienced it since the onset of the disease, especially with reference to the emotions triggered by the communication of the diagnosis: “When the neurologist communicated us that our son had MS I felt like dying…I remember I told “It’s not possible” (P04). Others, on the other hand, started to feel fatigued along the course of the disease especially when physical disabilities increased, or when they became aware of the disabling course of the disease.

Theme b: States of mind and concerns

In addition to the care burden that comes from being in a close and sometimes exclusive relationship with the PwMS for a long time, the caregivers disclosed their moods and concerns (Fig 2).

Fig 2. States of mind and worries.

Fig 2

Many have reported they have to manage their relatives in complete solitude. If in the initial stage of the disease, in the absence of severe disabilities, some have received closeness and emotional support from family members and friends, as the disease progressed this has occurred less and less. It was especially those who have been in charge of assistance for a long time who reported a condition of neglect by friends and family network. This complaint was often made in resigned and sometimes afflicted tones; at other times, however, tinged by sarcasm and anger.

“After the diagnosis relatives and friends were supportive, sympathetic. However, lately, we lost our friends, and now we are alone and I feel the complete responsibility … I’m alone with my hard caregiving work and I don’t have time for myself” (P10).

In addition, some family members have testified to the suffering inflicted by the illness on their life project, both as regards the relationship with their loved one, and the possibility of dedicating oneself to one’s passions, for example, to retirement plans. A wife referred to her prospects of growing old with her husband by cultivating common interests (travelling and hobbies).

“Since he got MS our life has not been the same…When we go on holiday is not easy, he can’t walk on the sand, or when we go to the mountains he can’t take the chairlift or walk to a hut…Our life plans to travel around the world are broken” (P13).

Another theme that emerged was the concern for children, especially when they are in adolescence or youth. Caregivers recognize how difficult it is for a child to witness the degenerative course of a parent’s disease, and how this becomes an element of great relevance both for the emotional-psychological implications, and for those inherent to life planning.

I remember when our daughter was 4 years old, and my husband started to have motor impairment, her desire was to run through a park and to ride a bicycle with her dad…. and it wasn’t easy for her not being able to do everything with him” (P06). For this reason, many parents have expressed their intention not to lean on their children, preserving them as much as possible from the burden of care. A mother told: “Our son is present, he is available and he wants to help me. But he has to study and think about his lifeso I don’t want to overload him with the care” (P14).

Theme c: Resources to cope with the assistance burden

Many family members have declared that they do not have the resources to counter the daily grind, alluding, as we have seen, to the condition of solitude and the lack of time to devote to themselves.

Others, on the other hand, said they resort to forms of help or the use of expedients / strategies to cope with the burden of care. Specifically, many elements included in the so-called extrinsic resources have emerged (Fig 3).

Fig 3. The resources of caregivers.

Fig 3

First of all, family members (children, husbands, sisters, grandchildren), considered an essential presence in the life of the caregiver. Friends and relatives are, in fact, points of reference not only in times of difficulty, as stated by a witness: “…if we have a need, I call my sister, she is the one who supports us in everything (….) she provides both psychological and personal material support, above all, in everyday life chores” (P06). In fact, the parental or friend network becomes, for the caregiver, a reassuring and helpful presence with which to share the ordinary care burden and find comfort in moments of discouragement. A witness tells us: “(…) we have one granddaughter who makes our days happy, so it’s a good thing she’s helping us, because I tell her frankly that some mornings I wouldn’t even want to get up, but…. but in short, we start our day, I think of her and we move forward” (P13).

Other resources that caregivers cite include: reading, sports and being able to succeed in cultivating their passions; for example: “At the end of the day, when my husband is in bed, and I’m tired, I immerse myself in readingreading is my greatest resource” (P15). “I need to run once a week to recharge my battery” (P05).

Finally, to cope with the burden of assistance, many family members declare that they refer to intrinsic resources linked: a) to the relationship and love towards one’s loved one “our love is my resource…”(P14), b) to understanding and empathic attitudes towards the disability of one’s loved one: “when I’m tired or angry, I ask myself: and now how does he feel? I think that my ability to put myself in his shoes is my best resource” (P16). c) to a spirit of dedication and patience. A wife says in this regard: “Because is there an issue that at least I can elaborate on "it happened to him but what if it had happened to me?" Then you feel energized, start the engine, also because there is little to say, the sorrow is so great, but also the love you feel is so great, and if you didn’t love those people, they couldn’t handle so many and hard tasks” (P07).

Theme d: Take charge by the MS CPW of the AUSL of Bologna

All caregivers are satisfied with the care and assistance offered by operators and by services related to the SM CPW of the AUSL of Bologna. Particular appreciations were made to the Multiple Sclerosis Center, which from the moment of diagnosis takes charge and follows the patient from the neurological, psychological and rehabilitative point of view, remaining a constant point of reference. “Everything is well organized. The services are linked with a high quality of the care, we feel supported. (P01).

Particularly kindness, active listening and open dialogue, in addition to the expertise of the healthcare operators are the most appreciated elements. The facility to contact the head of the Center, by mail or by telephone, at any time of the day to receive clarifications in the case of uncertainties, is an aspect that assumes great value for family members for the sense of security and of taking charge that this entails. “When we meet the doctor we talk for a long time. She asks me about my husband, his behaviours and she checks the exams with the previous ones…the doctor is very helpful and her communication is clear (P08).

In addition, the possibility of having an integrated pathway between hospital and local services is recognized as one of the strengths of the CPW. Regarding the limits of the pathway, the caregivers almost unanimously lamented the small number of cycles of physiotherapy that the CPW offers. They were being forced to resort to private physiotherapists to respond to the rehabilitation needs of their relatives. To this was added the limitations concerning the waiting list for psychiatric consultations to be carried out locally. Although most of the family members praised the helpfulness of the operators, some of them found the detached attitude of some doctors, a critical element, referring, in particular, to the perceived lack of interest in what happens outside the clinical-therapeutic intervention such as, for example, in the management of home care.

Theme e: The role of the Patient Association

All caregivers recognized the great value that the local Bologna section of AISM has in supporting them in care burden. The AISM, founded in 1968, works in a structured way to address all issues having an impact on PwMS. Reference was made to the many services that are offered such as: a) the transportation of the patient from home to the hospital in case of medical visits, rehabilitation sessions or to take part to activities at the headquarters of the Association; b) the physiotherapy sessions that take place inside of the headquarters; c) facility that MS patients are given to leave home and get to know other people with the same pathology; d) the opportunity to participate in recreational activities, such as theatre or to receive the support offered by the psychologist present at the section; f) the drug delivery service; g) family counselling and guidance service. In addition to the services offered, family members have expressed great satisfaction for the presence of volunteers, often young, who offer concrete help to support the physical and emotional burden of the caregiver. A family member tells: “the Association sent young volunteers home to help me, they bring a lot of joysome of them help a lot, for example he moved him (in reference to the patient), f, he studied how to do it, in short, they are very good” (P14). Another caregiver tells with emotion: “when I see the boys of this association coming, I am really moved, because they are doing everything to help you, and that is exactly what we need, the gesture, and not the thing itself” (P01). On this line another family member continued: “that little girl came to me this morning to take me here to the section of the association, and when she entered she said to me: "Good morning V. how are you?", it brightened my day, because hearing someone saying to me "how are you" is really important” (P10).

Theme f: The needs of family members

This represents one of the most relevant results of our interviews, as it highlights the mostly unmet needs of caregivers. These needs should be incorporated into the MS CPW, to provide solutions helpful for the quality of life and wellbeing of both the PwMS and their caregivers. The participants’ experiences showed that the needs which can relieve the fatigue of assistance are: a) needs regarding the condition of the caregiver, b) needs related to economic and social issues and c) needs related to the assistance of the patient and/or to a better organization of the MS CPW (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Needs expressed, grouped by type of need.

Fig 4

As regards the condition of the caregiver, most of the interviewees expressed the need to have time for themselves and someone to share their load with. Some have expressed the need to be able to consult other caregivers on some problems, such as helping children in adolescence or youth to enter into a relationship with the parent’s disease. “I’d like to have someone helping me for a few hours a day, because I’m constantly restrained at home with my husband. I confess I need to unplug for a bit, and I think that many caregivers have the same need […] I need to go out during the day and take time for myself” (participant 08); “For me it is important to share the responsibility of care…I’m an only daughter and I need someone to share my doubts, my fears and fatigues” (P12); Others instead, have expressed the need to receive an economic contribution to support the costs incurred for home assistance by the family to compensate for the reduced earnings deriving from continuous assistance to their family member “First, surely we need a financial support: most of the costs of physiotherapy are borne by us” (participant 11). On the social level, some have expressed the need for greater political-administrative attention paid to the problems faced by disabled people, such as the need to remove architectural barriers, to increase dedicated services and to promote voluntary associations. “[…] we need to sensitize the public administration because there are many diseases like MS, we need help from the public administration, the Associations for the rights of the patients, the rights of caregivers, []laws, in particular to remove architectural barriers (P 02); Finally, most of the family members asked for ongoing physiotherapy sessions for their relative, an issue which had already emerged “We need to have more physiotherapy sessions, especially at home, physiotherapy paid for by the Local Health Authority of Bologna” (P06).

Discussion

The results that emerged from our study are comparable to those of numerous quantitative [31,32] and qualitative [4] Italian and international studies about the caregiver burden. In particular, the results of this study are in line with those of an Italian research conducted through the use of validated scales such as the Health Survey (SF-36) [33], the Caregiver Burden Inventory [34], the Caregiving tasks in multiple sclerosis scale and the Psychological Well‐Being Scales [35].

The analysed interviews do not only reveal the paramount importance of the caregiver, but highlight the care burden deriving from the management of the PwMS. Based on one study by Boeije et al. [36], the burden of care is a recognized phenomenon, albeit many times tolerated, as associated with an implicit sense of duty. As stated by the subjects we interviewed, the role of the caregiver is, in fact, complex and articulate. The role does not only involve the fulfilment of physical needs, the need for continuous surveillance in the intermediate and advanced stages of illness and personal assistance (hygiene and personal care), but also taking charge of the emotional-affective as well as social dimension of one’s loved one.

Many interviewees reported that they experience fatigue particularly when it is necessary to carry out hygiene and mobilization activities and it is only partially alleviated by the use of aids, such as the lifter. Caregivers also argue that fatigue increases more rapidly with advancing age: older family members are often no longer able to provide for the physical needs of loved ones and report feeling concerned about their state of health and the consequences it may have on care [22,37].

However, as previously stated, most of the welfare burdens arise from the intangible aspects of care [38]. These include concern about the progress of the disease, the perception of loneliness, alienation, isolation and sense of responsibility for the ordinary management of assistance. There is also a restlessness for the difficult reconciliation between work and assistance, which very often results in the reduction or in the abandonment of work, as also stated by numerous studies [3943]. Many of the caregivers’ stories reveal a sense of melancholy related to the loss of life projects, both for oneself and for the couple. This is combined with concern for the future and a sense of apprehension in the attempt to preserve the children from the assistance burden as much as possible. A deeply felt problem concerns the consequences that a parent’s MS has on adolescent children or young adults. The subject is widely addressed in the literature [44]. Due to the emotional burden children suffer the often sudden need to front higher responsibilities and to be sometimes excessively involved in assisting the parent [45,46].

Resources are mobilized to cope with the burden of assistance. Resilience strategies related to two categories: extrinsic resources (family, friends, maintenance of their activities, social welfare activities) and intrinsic resources (love, dedication and empathy), are put in place. Thanks to these, caregivers do not only manage to decrease the burden, but also to make sense out of the process of care in itself.

It is interesting to highlight that social welfare activities are also included among the extrinsic resources offered by the AISM Association. The promotion, guidance and financing of scientific research and the provision of services, strives to improve the quality of life of PwMS by promoting their full inclusion and participation in community life, while also supporting the role of the caregiver. In addition to rehabilitation, drug delivery, transport of the PwMS and psychological and administrative support the caregivers found valuable the ability of young volunteers who enter the home, to create closeness and moral support.

It is important to underline that the AISM section of Bologna participated in the writing and periodic revision of the CPW of the AUSL of Bologna, speaking out for the needs of the PwMS and caregivers present in the territory.

Although limited availability of physiotherapy sessions at home has been reported as a problem at a national level, caregivers, in general, appreciated the services and organization of the MS CPW. Particular value was given to the availability, kindness and ability to take charge of operators. Therefore, the CPW should also be included among the extrinsic resources available to caregivers.

The need to share one’s condition as a caregiver, thereby emerging from loneliness and isolation, and the need to devote more time to self-care, as well as the request for more commitment to patient and caregiver welfare policies are in line with what is present in the literature and with the data from the ISTAT-AISM survey of 2017.

Caregivers represent an essential point of reference for the management of PwMS at home. As there is evidence that their quality of life is severely compromised due to a sense of loneliness in the daily care of their loved ones, it is necessary for health professionals, caring for PwMS, to pay particular attention also to the needs of family members, trying as much as possible to offer interventions to support and alleviate their fatigue.

Limitations

The study had the objective to understand the experience of caregivers of people in the care of the MS CPW of the AUSL of Bologna. One limit of the study is represented by the failure to succeed in recruiting caregivers attending other Patient Associations present in the area or caregivers of people external to the MS CPW to evaluate possible differences between those who were vs were not in charge of the MS CPW.

Conclusions

As a chronic and often disabling disease, MS does not only have an impact on the individual affected, but also on significant others. The feeling of fatigue, loneliness, alienation and isolation that caregivers experience on a daily basis significantly affects their quality of life and health status. There is a need for caregivers to reconcile working times with care times, to devote more space to self-care and to have moments in which being able to share one’s condition. These issues must be at the core of health policies. Solutions are necessary to avoid the occurrence of physical and emotional breakdown which could cause the disruption of the relational balance driving the choice of home care. Consequently it is necessary for health services to take full responsibility not only for the PwMS, but also for their caregivers.

Healthcare professionals should recognize that the care, needs and goals of PwMS and caregivers differ and, therefore, should provide customized educational and supportive strategies, consistent with their specific needs.

The data emerging from this survey also indicates the need to increase the attention paid not only by professionals, but also by institutions, to family members, often forgotten.

Considering that patient associations play a significant role in supporting caregivers, their widespread and active participation in strategic plans is increasingly desirable in the organization of care, as was the case for the MS CPW of the AUSL of Bologna.

The results of this research, especially as regards the issue of family needs, are relevant to pursue an improvement in the care of the family and the PwMS at each stage of the disease.

Further investigations, carried out with a mixed method on the same sample, are warranted to improve the quality of life of PwMS and their caregivers, by devising organizational models and support strategies for healthcare professionals.

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The publication of this article was supported by the "Ricerca Corrente" funding from the Italian Ministry of Health.

We wish to thank all the caregivers of PwMS who have participated in this study and the Sezione di Bologna of the Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla for continuous support and collaboration.

Data Availability

Data are available from Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7788479#.ZCa-SWBBzIU.

Funding Statement

The publication of this article was financially supported by the “Ricerca Corrente” funding from the Italian Ministry of Health. No additional external funding was received for this study.

References

  • 1.Mattarozzi K, Baldin E, Zenesini C, et al. Effect of organizational features on patient satisfaction with care in Italian multiple sclerosis centres. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24:631–637. doi: 10.1111/ene.13263 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maguire R, Maguire P. Caregiver burden in multiple sclerosis: Recent trends and future directions. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2020;20:18. doi: 10.1007/s11910-020-01043-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Uccelli Messmer M. The impact of multiple sclerosis on family members: a review of the literature. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2014;4:177–85. doi: 10.2217/nmt.14.6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Topcu G, Buchanan H, Aubeeluck A, and Garip G. Caregiving in multiple sclerosis and quality of life: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Psychol Health. 2016;31:693–710. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2016.1139112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Corry M, While A. The needs of carers of people with multiple sclerosis: A literature review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23:569–588. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00645.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Topcu G., Buchanan H., Aubeeluck A. and Ülsever H., Informal carers’ experiences of caring for someone with Multiple Sclerosis: A photovoice investigation. Br J Health Psychol. 2021;26:360–384. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12482 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Giordano A, Cimino V, Campanella A, Morone G, Fusco A, Farinotti M, et al. Low quality of life and psychological wellbeing contrast with moderate perceived burden in carers of people with severe multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2016;366:139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.05.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Buchanan R J, & Huang C. Health-related quality of life among informal caregivers assisting people with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2011;33:113–121. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.486467 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gottberg K, Chruzander C, Einarsson U, Fredrikson S, Johansson S, Widén Holmqvist L. Health-related quality of life in partners of persons with MS: a longitudinal 10-year perspective. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006097. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006097 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Katsavos S, Artemiadis A K, Zacharis M, Argyrou P, Theotoka I, Chrysovitsanou C, et al. Predicting caregiving status and caregivers’ burden in multiple sclerosis. A Short report. Neurol Res. 2017;39:13–15. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2016.1254942 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.van der Hiele K, van Gorp D A M, Heerings M A P, Jongen P J, van der Klink J J L, Beenakker E A C, et al. Caregiver strain among life partners of persons with mild disability due to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;31:5–11. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.03.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aronson KJ. Quality of life among persons with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers. Neurology. 1997;48:74–80. doi: 10.1212/wnl.48.1.74 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fye M, Yoder W, Manser K, Du Bois SN. Self-Care for Caregivers of Individuals Living With Multiple Sclerosis: Testing Mediation Models of Caregiver Stress, Health, and Self-Care. Home Health Care Management & Practice. 2021;33:139–146. doi: 10.1177/1084822320973219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Buhse M. Assessment of caregiver burden in families of persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurosci Nurs. 2008;40:25–31. doi: 10.1097/01376517-200802000-00005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Figved N, Myhr K M, Larsen J P, Aarsland D. Caregiver burden in multiple sclerosis: the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:1097–102. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.104216 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Opara J, Brola W. Quality of life and burden in caregivers of multiple sclerosis patients. Physiotherapy and Health Activity. 2017;25:9–16. doi: 10.1515/pha-2017-0002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Khan F, Pallant J, Brand C. Caregiver strain and factors associated with caregiver self-efficacy and quality of life in a community cohort with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1241–50. doi: 10.1080/01443610600964141 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pooyania S, Lobchuk M, Chernomas W, Marrie R A. Examining the Relationship Between Family Caregivers’ Emotional States and Ability to Empathize with Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Pilot Study. Int J MS Care. 2016;18:122–8. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2015-023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Donzé C, Lenne B, Jean Deleglise A S, Kempf C, Bellili Y, Hautecoeur P. EVASEP: A Non interventional Study Describing the Perception of Neurologists, Patients, and Caregivers on Caregivers’ Role in the Support of Patients Suffering from Multiple Sclerosis Treated with Subcutaneous Interferon Beta 1a. Mult Scler Int. 2016;2016:4986073–10. doi: 10.1155/2016/4986073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cohen M Z, Kahn D L, and Steeves R H. Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research: A Practical Guide for Nurse Researchers. 2000; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452232768 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wojnar D M, Swanson K M. Phenomenology: An Exploration. Holist Nurs Pract. 2007;25:172–180. doi: 10.1177/0898010106295172 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bagnasco A, Ghirotto L, & Sasso L. La ricerca qualitativa: Una risorsa per i professionisti della salute. Milano, Italy: Edra Masson. 2015. ISBN: 978–8821439513. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Creswell J. W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2007. ISBN 978-1-4129-1607-3. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McKeown L P, Porter-Armstrong A P, Baxter G D. Caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis: experiences of support. Mult Scler. 2004;10:219–30. doi: 10.1191/1352458504ms1008oa . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Neate S L, Taylor K L, Jelinek G A, et al. Psychological shift in partners of people with multiple sclerosis who undertake lifestyle modification: an interpretive phenomenological study. Front Psychol. 2018;9:15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00015 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Panahi M, Tazakori Z, Karimollahi M. Challenges of parents of daughters with Multiple Sclerosis: A Phenomenological study. J Health Care. 2018;20:165–176. doi: 10.29252/jhc.20.2.165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Strickland K, Worth A, Kennedy C. The experiences of support persons of people newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis: An interpretative phenomenological study. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71:2811–2821. doi: 10.1111/jan.12758 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Patton M.Q. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34:1189–1208. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, Di Censo A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41:545–547. doi: 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: Valle RS, King M, editors. Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.García-Domínguez J M, Martínez-Ginés M L, Carmona O, Caminero A B, Prefasi D, Maurino J, et al. Clinical Investigators. Measuring burden in caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis: psychometric properties of the CSI questionnaire. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:101–106. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S180863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gupta S, Goren A, Phillips A L, Stewart M. Self-reported burden among caregivers of patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2012;14:179–87. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073-14.4.179 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Patti F, Amato M P, Battaglia M A, et al. Caregiver quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a multicentre Italian study. Mult Scler. 2007;13:412–19. doi: 10.1177/1352458506070707 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rinaldi A, Zaghini F, Sili A. Il burden del caregiver informale dei malati di Sclerosi Multipla: Studio Pilota. Ig Sanita Pubbl. 2017;73:621–632. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bassi M, Cilia S, Falautano M, et al. The caring experience in multiple sclerosis: Caregiving tasks, coping strategies and psychological well‐being. Health Soc Care Community. 2020;28: 236–246. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Boeije HR, Van Doorne-Huiskes A. Fulfilling a sense of duty: how men and women giving care to spouses with multiple sclerosis interpret this role. Community Work Fam. 2003;6:223–244. doi: 10.1080/1366880032000143438 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cheung J, Hocking P. Caring as worrying: the experience of spousal carers. J Adv Nurs. 2004;47:475–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03126.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.de Mennato P, Orefice C, Branchi S. Educarsi alla cura. Un itinerario riflessivo tra frammenti e sequenze. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia. 2011. ISBN: 978-88-8232-855-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hughes N, Locock L, Ziebland S. Personal identity and the role of ’carer’ among relatives and friends of people with multiple sclerosis. Soc Sci Med. 2013;96:78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cheung J, Hocking P, The experience of spousal carers of people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Health Res. 2004;14:153–66. doi: 10.1177/1049732303258382 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Heward K, Molineux M, Gough B. A grounded theory analysis of the occupational impact of caring for a partner who has multiple sclerosis. J Occup Sci. 2006;13:188– 97. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2006.9726515 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Treder-Rochna N. Adaptation to the disease–the psychological resources of families struggling with multiple sclerosis. Health Psychol. Rep. 2020;8:136–144. 10.5114/hpr.2020.94722. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tehranineshat B, Yektatalab S, Momennasab M, Bijani M, Mohammadi F. The Experiences of Multiple Sclerosis Patients’ Family Caregivers at the First Hospitalization of Their Patients: A Qualitative Study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1159–1172. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S257746 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bogosian A, Moss-Morris R, Bishop F.L, Hadwin J. How do adolescents adjust to their parent’s multiple sclerosis? An interview study. Br J Health Psychol. 2011;16:430–44. doi: 10.1348/135910710X521492 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ferm U, Nilsson S, Nolbris MJ, Linnsand P, Jonsson A. Impact of a parent’s neurodegenerative disease and care on the daily life of children. In Mollaoglu M, editor. Care-giving and Home Care. Riejeka: IntechOpen. 2018; doi: 10.5772/intechopen.68839 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Razaz N, Joseph K S, Boyce WT, et al. Children of chronically ill parents: Relationship between parental multiple sclerosis and childhood developmental health. Mult Scler J. 2016;22:1452–1462. doi: 10.1177/1352458515621624 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sander L Hitzig

26 May 2022

PONE-D-22-05892BURDEN AND RESOURCES IN CAREGIVERS OF PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: A QUALITATIVE STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lugaresi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Both reviewers viewed the merits of your manuscript but they indicated a need for some more details regarding your methodological approach.  As well, Reviewer #2 felt there was a need for some more critical reflection regarding your themes. Please also review the manuscript submission guidelines if you decide to re-submit your paper (e.g., please ensure your submission is double-spaced). 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sander L. Hitzig

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is readable and clear. Thanks for the opportunity of reading about this topic!I want to thank the authors for this exciting work. However, some points should be considered to revise the manuscript.

Methods:

We invite the authors to justify their decision of methodology in further detail. Numerous other methodologies have been used in caregiver research and thus your justification is not suitable. The implications of this approach are warranted.

What does 'All protocol requirements have been formulated with respect for data confidentiality and

34 confidentiality required by the applicable regulatory regulations." mean?

The analysis section needs more detail.

Results

Why are these presented as bullet points? A more throughout thematic analysis of the burden of assistance and the effect of the effort is needed.

Overall:

I think a review for colloquial language should be conducted

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting topic focusing on the burden of caregiving and exploring further what that burden might look like. There is also a brief evaluation of the MS clinical pathway and the local support group.

At the moment, the rationale for the study could be stronger in relation to the gap in the literature and also the positioning of the study in relation to the evaluation context – is this really an evaluation of the MS clinical pathway? If it is then there needs to be a much closer tie between the facets of burden identified and the ways in which the MS clinical pathway does/does not meet those needs currently (maybe a table would help here?)

Introduction

• The rational needs to be clearer. Old studies are cited but what has significantly changed in the past 20 years that suggests that an update is necessary – I agree it might be the context needs to be made explicit.

• If this is going to include an evaluation of the MS clinical pathway then we need to hear more about it – we need some context about what it is/its aims etc

• What is meant in this context by ‘resources’ - groups, family and fiends, online information etc? This should be described further with relevant literature on what we already know about these resources included.

Method

• Justify excluding early stage caregivers

• What does AUSL stand for?

• What is the survey – do you mean the interview schedule?

• It would be useful to have more information around the interview schedule and some example questions? Did these vary for the focus groups?

• How many focus groups were there?

• Describe the characteristics of the caregivers (the participants) first before describing the pwMS and refer to table 1 in the text.

• What does EDSS stand for?

• More information on the analysis is required -how was this conducted, which authors were involved?

Results and discussion

• The themes mentioned in the opening paragraph of the results section do not match the themes presented beneath. Different number (4 then 6) in a different order and with different names. This needs to be reviewed.

• The first theme is interesting and speaks to the complexity of ‘burden’ but it feels a little rushed and under explored here. Can you use longer, richer quotes?

• Quotes need to be attributed to P1, P2 etc.

• Some themes are very descriptive in nature and are list like in places and some contain very few or no quotes to support the interpretation.

• Overall, this section feels unbalanced. The first theme feels like a theme with a lot of potential for really exploring the different facets of burden, the other themes feel either very light weight with few supporting quotes or more like a straightforward evaluation of the service. I think the paper needs to emphasise either the themes of burden further or at least find a way to tie together the burden and the current resources/support of the service to bring the findings together and identify key gaps for service provision and for future research. This could be achieved in the results and also carried through into the discussion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 17;18(4):e0265297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265297.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Jan 2023

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The paper is readable and clear. Thanks for the opportunity of reading about this topic! I want to thank the authors for this exciting work. However, some points should be considered to revise the manuscript.

Methods:

We invite the authors to justify their decision of methodology in further detail. Numerous other methodologies have been used in caregiver research and thus your justification is not suitable. The implications of this approach are warranted.

We thank the reviewer for the request. We have better explaind our chice in the methods section

What does 'All protocol requirements have been formulated with respect for data confidentiality and

34 confidentiality required by the applicable regulatory regulations." mean?

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify this point. We have rewritten the sentence more concisely and clearly. We intended to certify that all regulations on data protection had been thoroughly applied.

The analysis section needs more detail.

The study is a qualitative work. We have now added more details about the analytical method, adding a sentence at the end of this section: “…The research team used several strategies to ensure the accuracy of the findings. The analytic team met regularly throughout the iterative process of data analysis to reflect on ways individual values, experiences, or preconceptions might influence or create bias in interpretations of the data may have informed perceptions of participant statements and emerging themes. In addition, the analytic team wrote memos throughout the data analysis, noting observations and reactions to the interview responses. Finally, the last author (AL), who had not previously participated in data analysis, conducted an independent review of the findings and coding documents to assess the trustworthiness of the analysis.”

Results

Why are these presented as bullet points? A more throughout thematic analysis of the burden of assistance and the effect of the effort is needed.

Rather than bullet points it was a sequence of the 6 identified relevant themes analyzed from the transcripts of the interviews and focus group. We have maintained, therefore, the division into the main themes emerged from interviews and for each we have tried to extract and cite verbatim meaningful parts of the interviews. We have also tried to deepen the considerations about the meaning of the different issues raised by caregivers as requested.

Overall:

I think a review for colloquial language should be conducted

We thank reviewer #1 for highlighting this point. We have revised language accordingly, and we hope this will satisfy reviewers and editor. However colloquial expressions have been maintained in excerpts from interviews.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting topic focusing on the burden of caregiving and exploring further what that burden might look like. There is also a brief evaluation of the MS clinical pathway and the local support group.

At the moment, the rationale for the study could be stronger in relation to the gap in the literature and also the positioning of the study in relation to the evaluation context – is this really an evaluation of the MS clinical pathway? If it is then there needs to be a much closer tie between the facets of burden identified and the ways in which the MS clinical pathway does/does not meet those needs currently (maybe a table would help here?)

We thank the reviewer for raising the issue of the evaluation of the clinical pathway. After thorough consideration we have opted for not evaluating the CPW, only mentioning some issues raised by caregivers. We have amended the manuscript eliminating point b from the last paragraph of the introduction.

• The rational needs to be clearer. Old studies are cited but what has significantly changed in the past 20 years that suggests that an update is necessary – I agree it might be the context needs to be made explicit.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have updated the literature and hope to have better clarified the rationale.

• If this is going to include an evaluation of the MS clinical pathway then we need to hear more about it – we need some context about what it is/its aims etc

As stated above we have decided to limit the study to cargivers observations. A further study, in the future, might be dedicated to a formal evaluation of changes needed to improve the efficacy of the CPW and improve caregivers satisfaction. A yearly monitoring and revision of the CPW is performed in this respect

• What is meant in this context by ‘resources’ - groups, family and friends, online information etc? This should be described further with relevant literature on what we already know about these resources included.

We have added a sentence in the methods section: b) assess which resources the carers rely on to manage the burden of care. These include: psychological help, emotional resources; relationship (family, friends or groups); support system resources, financial resources etc.

Method

• Justify excluding early stage caregivers

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. In MS caregivers are not needed in the early stages of Multiple Sclerosis, where the patient may have subtle impairment of some functions, but usually does not need a caregiver. Thus we did not exclude caregivers of people in the early stages of the disease, who were very few, if any. We have concentrated our attention on PwMS at stages where impairment and disability are more pronounced and require a caregiver

• What does AUSL stand for?

We thank the reviewer for asking. This is the acronym for Azienda Unica Sanitaria Locale, which identifies the Local Health Authority of Bologna, responsible for Healthcare provision in the area of Bologna, in the Emilia Romagna Region, in Italy.

• What is the survey – do you mean the interview schedule?

We thank the reviewer for suggesting a more precise wording.

• It would be useful to have more information around the interview schedule and some example questions? Did these vary for the focus groups?

We thank the reviewer for asking for more information. We have added the required information in the manuscript. In particular the same questions were asked both in interviews and in the single focus group

• How many focus groups were there?

We thank the reviewer for asking. We held a single focus group, due to the small number of subjects included in the study and willing to participate to a focus group. People unable or unwilling to attend the focus group were individually interviewed

• Describe the characteristics of the caregivers (the participants) first before describing the pwMS and refer to table 1 in the text.

We thank the reviewer for noticing that table 1 was unlinked. We have now amended this imprecision and modified the order of presentation of caregiver and patient characteristics according to the reviewer suggestions.

• What does EDSS stand for?

We apologize for the use of a technical acronym without explaining first its meaning

The EDSS is the Expanded Disability Status Score, a scale used to assess impairment (below 4) or disability (4 or higher). The score derives from the scores in 7 different “functional systems”: pyramidal, sensory, brainstem, cerebellar, visual, mental, bowel and bladder. It’s not arithmetical, 0 stands for normal neurological examination, 10 for death due to MS. In between relevant scores for this study: 6 stands for needing a stick, 7 needing a wheelchair (Kurtzke, 1983:

Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. PMID: 6685237).

• More information on the analysis is required -how was this conducted, which authors were involved?

Authors involved in interviews and the focus group were SB and EP. CD provided critical methodological supervision and AL discussed the results with the other co-authors and revised the draft. Details have now been reported in the last paragraph of the analysis section.

Results and discussion

• The themes mentioned in the opening paragraph of the results section do not match the themes presented beneath. Different number (4 then 6) in a different order and with different names. This needs to be reviewed.

We thank the reviewer for noticing the discrepancies between the methods section and the results section. We have revised the text accordingly

• The first theme is interesting and speaks to the complexity of ‘burden’ but it feels a little rushed and under explored here. Can you use longer, richer quotes?

Thank you for asking longer quotes, we had omitted for brevity. We have now widened the quotations

• Quotes need to be attributed to P1, P2 etc.

We have now attributed quotes to individual caregivers, in the table called PARTICIPANTS, therefore in brief P (P01 to P17)

• Some themes are very descriptive in nature and are list like in places and some contain very few or no quotes to support the interpretation.

We have increased quotations in order to provide a better support for themes identified

• Overall, this section feels unbalanced. The first theme feels like a theme with a lot of potential for really exploring the different facets of burden, the other themes feel either very light weight with few supporting quotes or more like a straightforward evaluation of the service. I think the paper needs to emphasise either the themes of burden further or at least find a way to tie together the burden and the current resources/support of the service to bring the findings together and identify key gaps for service provision and for future research. This could be achieved in the results and also carried through into the discussion.

This is a very relevant observation. We hope the revised version of the results and discussion sections will be found satisfactory

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 221229 PONE-D-22-05892 RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (3).docx

Decision Letter 1

Habil Otanga

6 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-05892R1BURDEN AND RESOURCES IN CAREGIVERS OF PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: A QUALITATIVE STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alessandra Lugaresi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

1. Clearly provide details of the Ethical Review Board the protocol was submitted to

2. Check journal requirements for labelling tables

3. Remove bullet points in discussing 'Theme a'

4. Change the word to 'Limitations' on p13

5. Define the appropriate referencing style in line with journal requirements and ensure consistency. Each reference is presented differently from the next.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Habil Otanga, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Clearly provide details of the Ethical Review Board the protocol was submitted to

2. Check journal requirements for labelling tables

3. Remove bullet points in discussing 'Theme a'

4. Change the word to 'Limitations' on p13

5. Define the appropriate referencing style in line with journal requirements and ensure consistency. Each reference is presented differently from the next.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 1. Ethical considerations: Clearly provide details of where the protocol was submitted for review (and found that no authorization was necessary)

2. Check journal rules concerning labelling tables

3. Results: Present findings of 'Theme a' without bullet points.

4. Change the word to 'Limitations' on p13

5. References: Define the referencing style and ensure consistency. Each reference is presented differently from the next.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 17;18(4):e0265297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265297.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-05892R1

BURDEN AND RESOURCES IN CAREGIVERS OF PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

PLOS ONE

Point-by-point response

1. Clearly provide details of the Ethical Review Board the protocol was submitted to

We have added in the text what was already attached to the submission: the local ethics committee is the

Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro della Regione Emilia-Romagna (CE-AVEC), and was active since

10/1/2018. As stated in Italian, there is no need to submit to the ethics committee, as no personal details have been provided

2. Check journal requirements for labelling tables

We have adhered to journal requirements (Caption above the table). We apologize for not noticing earlier.

3. Remove bullet points in discussing 'Theme a'

We have removed the bullet points, numbering in the text the 6 issues

4. Change the word to 'Limitations' on p13

We have changed limits to LIMITATIONS, as required

5. Define the appropriate referencing style in line with journal requirements and ensure consistency. Each reference is presented differently from the next.

We apologize for the imprecisions. References have been revised to be in line with journal requirements

In addition we have corrected some typos we picked in re-reading the manuscript.

==============================

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have not cited papers which have been retracted. A few are not on PubMed, but have a DOI, which we have used to enable readers to easily find the right article or chapter in a book (they are open access).

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Clearly provide details of the Ethical Review Board the protocol was submitted to

2. Check journal requirements for labelling tables

3. Remove bullet points in discussing 'Theme a'

4. Change the word to 'Limitations' on p13

5. Define the appropriate referencing style in line with journal requirements and ensure consistency. Each reference is presented differently from the next.

See above

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-05892R2 RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

Decision Letter 2

Habil Otanga

27 Mar 2023

BURDEN AND RESOURCES IN CAREGIVERS OF PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

PONE-D-22-05892R2

Dear Dr. Alessandra Lugaresi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Habil Otanga, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Habil Otanga

6 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-05892R2

Burden and resources in caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative study

Dear Dr. Lugaresi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Habil Otanga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 221229 PONE-D-22-05892 RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (3).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-05892R2 RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7788479#.ZCa-SWBBzIU.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES