Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 339–346 | Cite as

Subjective burden of family caregivers with Turkish immigration background in Germany

Validation of the Turkish version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers
Original Contribution
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Subjective burden is a central variable for describing the situation of family caregivers. Up to now the subjective burden of family caregivers with Turkish immigration background in Germany has not been quantitatively investigated.

Objectives

The aim of this study was the validation of the Turkish version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers (BSFCtr).

Material and methods

In order to measure the subjective burden of family caregivers with Turkish immigration background, the BSFC was translated into Turkish. The internal consistency of the 28-item BSFCtr was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. The difficulty indices and discriminating powers of the items were analyzed. The construct validity was examined by using three hypotheses of association.

Results

The cross-sectional study was conducted on 49 family caregivers with a Turkish immigration background in Germany who care for older, chronically ill persons. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.89. The caregiver burden was greater when the care recipient had substantial regular nursing care needs and when the spouse or partner had assumed the care as compared with the children or children-in-law. Caregiver burden significantly increased with the extent of psychosomatic symptoms of the caregiver.

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the BSFC proved to be a reliable and valid measure for determining the subjective burden of family caregivers.

Keywords

Aged Home nursing Cross-sectional study Validity Chronic illness 

Subjektive Belastung pflegender Angehöriger mit türkischem Migrationshintergrund in Deutschland

Validierung der türkischsprachigen Fassung der Häusliche-Pflege-Skala

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die subjektive Belastung ist eine wichtige Variable, mit der die Situation pflegender Angehöriger charakterisiert wird. Bisher ist die subjektive Belastung pflegender Angehöriger mit türkischem Migrationshintergrund in Deutschland nicht quantitativ untersucht worden.

Zielsetzung

Ziel der Studie war es, die türkischsprachige Fassung der Häusliche-Pflege-Skala (HPStr) zu validieren.

Material und Methoden

Um die subjektive Belastung pflegender Angehöriger mit türkischem Migrationshintergrund erfassen zu können, wurde die HPS ins Türkische übersetzt. Zur Bestimmung der internen Konsistenz der 28-Item-Version der HPStr wurde Cronbachs Alpha berechnet. Der Schwierigkeitsgrad und die Trennschärfe der Items wurden analysiert. Auf der Grundlage von drei Zusammenhangshypothesen wurde die Konstruktvalidität untersucht.

Ergebnisse

An der Querschnittstudie nahmen 49 pflegende Angehörige mit türkischem Migrationshintergrund teil, die in Deutschland eine ältere, chronisch kranke Person pflegten. Cronbachs Alpha der Gesamtskala betrug 0,89. Die subjektive Belastung der pflegenden Angehörigen war größer, wenn der pflegebedürftigen Person eine Pflegestufe zugeordnet war. Hatte ein (Ehe-)Partner die Pflege übernommen, war die Belastung im Vergleich zur häuslichen Pflege durch Kinder oder Schwiegerkinder ebenfalls größer. Die subjektive Belastung korrelierte positiv mit dem Ausmaß der psychosomatischen Beschwerden der pflegenden Angehörigen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die HPStr erwies sich als ein reliables und valides Instrument zur Erfassung der subjektiven Belastung türkischstämmiger pflegender Angehöriger.

Schlüsselwörter

Ältere Menschen Häusliche Pflege Querschnittsstudie Validität Chronische Erkrankung 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the family caregivers for participation in the study and also express their gratitude to the managers of the outpatient nursing institutions who assisted in recruiting the study population. The authors also thank the English language translator Ms. Deirdre Winter and the language editor Dr. Jane Zagorski.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

N. Ulusoy and E. Graessel state that there are no conflicts of interest.

The study was carried out in accordance with the procedure approved by the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. All procedures were carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (in its most recently amended version). Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Barber CE, Pasley BK (1995) Family care of Alzheimer’s patients: The role of gender and generational relationship on caregiver outcomes. J Appl Gerontol 14:172–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration [Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration] (2005) Sixth report on the situation of foreigners in Germany. Bundestagsdrucksache 15/5826 from 22.06.2005, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) [Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth] (2000) Sechster Familienbericht: Familien ausländischer Herkunft in Deutschland. Leistungen, Belastungen, Herausforderungen und Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung [Sixth Family Report: families of foreign origin in Germany. Benefits, burdens, challenges and opinion of the Federal Government]. Deutscher Bundestag. Drucksache 14/4357 [House of Representatives, Printed Matter 14/4357]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bilgin Y, Doppel W, Bretzel RG (1988) Special features of the internal medicine service of Turkish patients with coronary heart disease in a Medical Polyclinic. Internist Welt 12:55–57Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blohm M, Diehl C (2001) When migrants interview migrants. On the survey participation of migrants. Z Soziol 30:223–242Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Research methods and evaluation for the humanities and social sciences. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brähler E, Hinz A, Scheer JW (2008) Gießener Beschwerdebogen GBB-24. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bugge C, Alexander H, Hagen S (1999) Stroke patients’ informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service factors that affect caregiver strain. Stroke 30:1517–1523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deufert D (2013) Gender-related aspects of family caregiving. Z Gerontol Geriatr 46:520–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engel S (2008) Family counseling – improving the situation of family carers as a central field in gerontological psychology. In: Oswald WD, Gatterer G, Fleischmann U (eds) Gerontopsychology. Fundamentals and clinical aspects of psychology of aging. Springer, Wien New York, pp 195–212Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Etters L, Goodall D, Harrison B (2008) Caregiver burden among dementia patient caregivers: A review of the literature. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 20:423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisseni HJ (1997) Textbook of psychological assessment. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gräßel E (2001) Häusliche-Pflege-Skala HPS zur Erfassung der Belastung bei betreuenden oder pflegenden Personen, 2nd edn. Vless, EbersbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gräßel E (1998) Subjective burden and health of family caregivers. Cross-sectional study of homecare of older patients with progressive nursing needs. Hänsel-Hohenhausen, Egelsbach (Germany)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gräßel E, Adabbo R (2011) Perceived burden of informal caregivers of a chronically ill older family member: burden in the context of the transactional stress model of Lazarus and Folkman. GeroPsych (Bern) 24:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grau H, Graessel E, Berth H (2015) The subjective burden of informal caregivers of persons with dementia: extended validation of the German language version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers (BSFC). Aging Ment Health 19:159–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hasemann W, Kesselring A, Stöcklin M, Gräßel E (2007) Caregivers of stroke patients: Predictors of subjective burden. Z Gerontol Psychol Psychiatr 20:227–237Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herbert U (2001) Geschichte der Ausländerpolitik in Deutschland. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly M (2010) Who cares for the carers? J Ren Care 36:16–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knipper M, Bilgin Y (2009) Migration und Gesundheit. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V., Sankt Augustin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kücük F (2008) Belastungserleben und Bewältigungsstrategien bei pflegenden Angehörigen von demenziell erkrankten türkischen Migranten/-innen. Z Gerontol Psychol Psychiatr 21:105–116Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamura G, Mnich E, Wojszel B, Nolan M, Krevers B, Mestheneos L, Döhner H (2006) The experience of family carers of older people in the use of support services in Europe: selected findings from the EUROFAMCARE project. Z Gerontol Geriatr 39:429–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinquart M, Sörensen S (2007) Correlates of physical health of informal caregivers: A meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 62B:126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reggentin H (2005) Caregiver’s burden of caring for patients with dementia in group living compared to domestic and inpatient care. Z Gerontol Geriatr 38:101–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schimany P, Rühl S, Kohls M (2012) Ältere Migrantinnen und Migranten, Forschungsbericht 18. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmeling-Kludas C, Fröschlin R, Boll-Klatt A (2003) Inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation for Turkish migrants: what can be realized, what are the effects? Rehabilitation 42:363–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schneekloth U (2005) Development trends in care needs in private households – results of the representative Infratest study. In: Schneekloth U, Wahl HW (eds) Potential and limits of independent living in private households (MUG III). TNS Infratest Sozialforschung, München, pp 55–98Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneekloth U (2006) Trends and future prospects in home care. Core results of a study on the potentials and limits of independent living (MuG III). Z Gerontol Geriatr 39:405–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seltzer MM, Li LW (2000) The dynamics of caregiving: Transitions during a three-year prospective study. Gerontologist 40:165–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ulusoy N, Gräßel E (2010) Turkish emigrants in Germany. Deficits in home care knowledge and health services – a review. Z Gerontol Geriatr 43:330–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilz G, Adler C, Gunzelmann T (2001) Group work with relatives of dementia patients. A therapeutic guide. Hogrefe, Göttingen Bern Toronto SeattleGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yilmaz-Aslan Y, Glodny S, Razum O (2009) Social networking as an alternative approach for the recruitment of Turkish migrants to scientific studies on the example of the project saba. Hallesche Beitr Gesundh Pflegewiss 8:636–653Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zink A, Korporal J (1990) Social epidemiology of diseases of foreigners in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: Kentenich H, Reeg P, Wehkamp KH (eds) Between two cultures. What makes foreigners ill?. Mabuse, Frankfurt, pp 24–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Excellence for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare)University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)HamburgGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Centre of Health Services Research in Medicine, Department for Psychiatry and PsychotherapyFriedrich‑Alexander‑Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations