ArticleAphasiology2020
Balance and preference in activity participation for informal caregivers of people with aphasia: A questionnaire study.
Article in Aphasiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: With increased attention to third-party disability, there is a need to evaluate how informal caregivers of people with aphasia participate in diverse life activities. Qualitative research has improved our understanding of experiences and priorities in this essential group of stakeholders. However, there has been limited effort to confirm results quantitatively and based on robust sample sizes. Aims: To characterize the balance and preference among home/work, leisure, and social activities for informal caregivers based on questionnaires that can also be used with people who have aphasia. Methods &Procedures: Seventy caregivers for people with aphasia and 46 control participants who were not caregivers completed the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) and a questionnaire version of the Life Interests and Values (LIV) Cards. Outcomes & Results: CIQ scores did not differ statistically between groups, but the frequency of endorsed activities on the LIV Cards did. Whereas current engagement in home and community activities was similar for the two groups, caregivers reported doing significantly fewer activities in social, physical, and creative and relaxing categories. In contrast to the balance difference for their current life, participants in both groups agreed about wanting to do more social and leisure activities, with many activities rising to the top in both groups. Conclusions: Informal caregivers for people with aphasia experience a measurable difference between activities they currently do in their lives and activities they want to do. With modification, interviews and questionnaires intended for people with disability can provide a caregiver perspective on living with aphasia that may facilitate coordinated and relationship-focused intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.