Oral Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2023

Does caregiver and cancer patient health literacy, social support and connectedness impact caregiver psychological morbidity? (#55)

Eva YN Yuen 1 2 , Carlene Wilson 3 4 5 , Trish M Livingston 2 6 , Victoria M White 7 , Vicki McLeod 1 , Polly Dufton 8 , Alison M Hutchinson 2 9
  1. Monash Health, Clayton, VIC
  2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia
  3. School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
  4. Psycho-Oncology Research Unit, ONJ Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
  5. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  6. Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125
  7. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia
  8. Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  9. Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia

Aims: Research shows that health literacy and social connectedness contribute to overall health and wellbeing across chronic disease and general populations (1-3), yet few studies have explored their influence on the psychological wellbeing of caregivers. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between caregiver and care recipient health literacy, social connectedness, and social support on caregiver psychological morbidity in a cancer context.

Methods: 125 caregiver-cancer care recipient dyads completed this cross-sectional survey. Surveys completed included: Health Literacy Survey-EU-Q16 (4), Social Connectedness Scale-Revised (5), the Medical Outcomes Study–Social Support Survey (6), and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS21) (7). Hierarchical multiple regression with care recipient factors entered at Step 1 and caregiver factors at Step 2 was conducted to examine their impacts on the psychological wellbeing (DASS21 total score) of caregivers.

Results: Caregivers predominantly provided care to their spouse (69.6%) with a diagnosis of breast (46.4%), gastrointestinal (32.8%), lung (13.6%), or genitourinary (7.2%) cancer.

Caregivers reported depression and stress scores in the normal range, and mild anxiety (M=4.02 [SD=4.07], M=2.7 [SD=3.64], and M=5.48 [SD=4.24] respectively), with a mean total DASS21 score of 24.38 (SD=22.48). Regression analyses revealed that only caregiver factors (age, illness/disability, health literacy and social connectedness) were independent predictors of caregiver psychological morbidity (F[10,114]=18.07, p<.001).

Conclusion: Caregiver, but not care recipient, factors were found to impact the psychological wellbeing of caregivers. Although both health literacy and social connectedness were found to impact the psychological outcomes of caregivers, perceived social connectedness had the greatest influence. Strategies and resources to optimise health literacy in cancer caregivers, as well as facilitating skills to ensure the development and maintenance of social connection when providing care, have the potential to enhance adequate psychological wellbeing in cancer caregivers.