Table 1.
Assessments of the objective nad subjective burden of informal care to patients with psychiotic disorders: Instruments used in the study.
| Concept addressed/scoring | Name of instrument | Number of items | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessments by the informal caregivers | |||
| ‘Subjective’ burden – positive and negative dimensions (Likert scale anchored by ‘no’ and ‘a lot’) | CarerQoL-7D | 7 | Brouwer, van Exel, van Gorp, & Redekop (2006) |
| ‘Subjective’ burden – overall situation (score 0 to 10 – higher = smaller burden) | CarerQoL-VAS | 1 | Brouwer, van Exel, van Gorp, & Redekop (2006) |
| Subjective’ burden – three subscales: Negative impact (score from 6 to 24 – highest negative impact) Positive impact (score from 5 to 20 – highest positive impact) Quality of support (score from 4 to 16 – best support) | COPE index | 15 7 4 4 | McKee et al. (2003) Balducci et al. (2008) |
| Productivity consequences of care giving | WPAI | 6 | Reilly, Bracco, Ricci, Santoro, & Stevens (2004) |
| Health status of the informal caregivers – five dimensions | EQ-5D | 5 | Rabin & de Charro (2001) |
| Global health status of the informal caregivers (score from 0 to 1 – best) | EQ VAS | 1 | Rabin & de Charro (2001) |
| HRQoL of informal caregivers | EQ-5D index | n.a. | Dolan & Roberts (2002) |
| Time spent and expenses related to informal care giving – objective burden | Diary | n/a | n.a. |
| Assessments by the investigators | |||
| Psychosocial functioning of the patient – overall | GAF | 1 | American Psychiatric Association (1994) |
| Symptoms – overall picture | GAF | 1 | American Psychiatric Association (1994) |
| Clinically relevant symptoms of the patients (total score from 8 to 56 – higher = more symptoms) | RS-S | 8 | Opler, Yang, Caleo, & Alberti (2007) |
n/a = not applicable
n.a. = not assessed