Back to all available

Social support and care burden in family caregivers of patients with hematologic malignancies: a parallel mediation model of coping strategies

nursing
oncology
psychiatry-and-psychology

Abstract

Objective. With the rising incidence of hematologic malignancies (HMs) in recent years, caregivers of HMs patients have increasingly emerged as a significant factor affecting the treatment of these conditions. This study aimed to explore the association of coping strategies on the relationship between care burden and social support among family caregivers of HMs patients.

Methodology. A questionnaire survey was conducted involving 207 family caregivers of hospitalized HMs patients in a tertiary hospital in Dalian from October 2023 to May 2024, and 200 valid responses were collected. We used hierarchical linear regression and a parallel mediation model to assess the relationships and potential mediating effects among care burden, coping strategies, and social support.

Results. In our study, the care burden showed a medium level, and the average score was 44.21 ± 15.92. Positive coping strategy (r = -0.769, P < 0.01) and social support (r = -0.654, P < 0.01) showed a negative correlation with care burden, while negative coping strategy was significantly correlated with care burden (r = 0.788, P < 0.01). According to the mediating effect analysis after covariate adjustment, the relationships between social support and care burden were mediated by coping strategy in the total sample, and the indirect effect value was -0.955, accounting for 73.57% of the total effect.

Conclusions. Family caregivers of HMs patients with more negative coping strategies and less social support were significantly associated with higher levels of care burden. Coping strategy served as a partial parallel mediator between social support and care burden.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].