Open Access

Schizophrenia in Malaysian families: A study on factors associated with quality of life of primary family caregivers

  • Ruzanna ZamZam1Email author,
  • Marhani Midin1, 2,
  • Lim S Hooi1, 2,
  • Eng J Yi1, 2,
  • Siti NA Ahmad1, 2,
  • Siti FA Azman1, 2,
  • Muhammad S Borhanudin1, 2 and
  • Rozhan SM Radzi2
Contributed equally
International Journal of Mental Health Systems20115:16

DOI: 10.1186/1752-4458-5-16

Received: 19 August 2010

Accepted: 8 June 2011

Published: 8 June 2011

Abstract

Background

Schizophrenia is a chronic illness which brings detrimental effects in the caregivers' health. This study was aimed at highlighting the socio-demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors associated with the subjective Quality of Life (QOL) of Malaysian of primary family caregivers of subjects with schizophrenia attending an urban tertiary care outpatient clinic in Malaysia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed to study patient, caregiver and illness factors associated with the QOL among 117 individuals involved with caregiving for schizophrenia patients. The study used WHOQOL-BREF to assess caregivers' QOL and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) to assess the severity of patients' symptoms. Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) assessed the stress level due to life events.

Results

The mean scores of WHOQOL-BREF in physical, psychological, social and environmental domains were 66.62 (14.36), 61.32 (15.52), 62.77 (17.33), 64.02 (14.86) consecutively. From multiple regression analysis, factors found to be significantly associated with higher QOL were higher educational level among caregivers in social and environmental domains; caregivers not having medical problem/s in physical and psychological domains; later onset and longer illness duration of illness in social domains; patients not attending day care program in environmental domain; lower BPRS score in physical and environmental domains. SRRS score of caregivers was also found to have a significant negative correlation with QOL in environmental and psychological domains. Other factors were not significantly associated with QOL.

Conclusion

Caregivers with more social advantages such as higher educational level and physically healthier and dealing with less severe illness had significantly higher QOL in various aspects. Supporting the caregivers in some of these modifiable factors in clinical practice is important to achieve their higher level QOL.

Introduction

Schizophrenia is a chronic and profoundly disabling psychiatric disorder (1). In Malaysia, there are increasing number of people with newly diagnosed schizophrenia receiving psychiatric care (2, 3). Most of schizophrenia patients have impairment in social functioning and this is known to cause distress not only to the patients themselves but also to the caregivers (4-7).

Previous studies concluded that caregivers of schizophrenia patients were at risk of having lower QOL due to mental health problems and higher caregiver burden (8, 9). Their subjective QOL was found to be similar to that of the patients but lower than that of a general population sample. (10)

The level of QOL in caregivers of the mentally ills has been found to be associated with various factors including illness factors in patients and psychosocial background of the caregivers. Severity of symptoms, illness duration, level of disabilities, perceived stigma (11-18), being female caregivers with nuclear family (19), being older with lower socioeconomic status (12) and recent life crisis (20) were found to be associated with lower QOL.

The issue of QOL in caregivers is particularly important in Malaysia as similar to what is happening in many other neighboring countries, the mental health care system in Malaysia is now moving to the community-based care where families take up bigger role in caring for patients and may experience additional burden(21). This process of change, which has been guided by a clear policy (22) and legal act (23) requires families to actively participate in planning and management of patients (24). Even though skill training, psychoeducation and emotional support in handling the mentally ill patients at home are being given to caregivers, these may not be enough to equip them with the new challenge of having patients constantly at home. Admittedly, there is still shortage of community resources to cater for the needs of caregivers and caregiving still requires much time, effort and work on the care givers part (25). Another worrying situation is even when Malaysian caregivers developed significant distress, they do not complaint about it (26) and this may lead to burn out in caregiving and other negative consequences.

In this context of change in service system where families are taking up a bigger role in caregiving of patients, this study was designed to assess the various factors that affect the QOL of Malaysian caregivers while caring for family member with schizophrenia. It can be informative to the service providers in implementing more effective family interventions.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, conducted at psychiatry outpatient clinic in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKKMC), Kuala Lumpur, from November 2009 till April 2010. This is an urban tertiary facility, located south of Kuala Lumpur, a government run center which is easily accessible by public transports. It provides comprehensive medical care including psychiatry.

Sample

All consecutive patients with schizophrenia and their primary family caregivers who came for clinic visits during the study period were offered to enter the study. Primary family caregiver was defined as the person belonging to the patient's family system who took the care and was responsible for the patient, and who committed most of his or her time to that task without receiving any economic retribution (27). They were identified by researchers using the clinic patient registry. Both the caregivers and patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were explained about the study and consents were obtained. The inclusion criteria were: patients who diagnosed with schizophrenia based on Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-IV-TR (DSM-IV-TR) by psychiatrist; clinically stable to provide consent and to participate in this study. The exclusion criteria were those who declined consent and not accompanied by their primary family caregiver.

Instruments

Quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) measured the main study outcome. It is a shortened version of WHOQOL-100, developed by WHOQOL group. There are four main domains derived from the 26 items in this questionnaire, comprising of physical, psychological, social and environment. These four domains were shown to be valid measures of overall QOL and health. This questionnaire is cross-culturally sensitive has good to excellent reliability and validity (28). There are 19 different languages available and are self-administered. Higher score means a better quality of life. In this study, the Malay version of WHOQOL_BREF was used. It has been validated and showed high correlation with that of WHOQOL-100. It was found to have good discriminant and construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability (29).

Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) evaluated the patients' psychopathology. The self-rated Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS)(30). It is the most widely used instrument for the measurement of an individual's experience of psychosocial stress. In our local context, SRRS was used in local study and there was a remarkable concordance (Spearman's rho ranged from. 97 to. 91) between the Malaysian and American samples (31). We used the modified Malay version of SRRS (32) in this study, which has been widely used in local studies (33, 34).

Procedure

Both patients and their caregiver completed the WHOQOL-BREF Malay version and SRRS Malay version. Five investigators conducted structured interviews with the patients to assess the severity of their conditions using BPRS. The interviews were conducted in Malay language as all subjects and caregivers could speak Malay regardless of their ethnicity. This research project was approved by the Research and Ethical Committee, Faculty of Medicine, PPUKM.

Statistical analysis

Data entry and statistical analysis were conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program for windows, version 18.0. The distribution of each domain of WHOQOL-BREF was described. Bivariate analysis was performed for each independent factor using student t-test analyses. All the significant factors later further analyzed using linear regression analysis. The inclusion of variables in the model was based on p value less than 0.05.

Results

Out of a total of 209 patients approached, 92 patients who fulfilled the exclusion criteria were excluded. Amongst them, 50 came alone without caregivers, 29 did not give their consent, whilst the rest 13 were not the primary caregivers. A total o 117 patients with their caregivers who met the inclusion criteria, were enrolled for this study.

Slightly more than half of the patients and caregivers were females (Table 1). On average, the caregivers were in their middle age and most of the patients were young adults. In terms of ethnic distribution, Malays and Chinese were predominant. This represents the ethnic distribution of the local population in the study area. The majority of patients was single, unemployed, not receiving financial aid and had received education up to the secondary school level. Most of the caregivers were parents, married, did not have medical problems and half of them were employed. Almost 90% of caregivers were also providing care to two and more either financially or socially dependent family members.
Table 1

Sociodemographic and clinical profiles of the respondents

 

Patients

Caregivers

 

N

%

N

%

Demographic variable

    

Gender

    

   Male

49

41.9

56

47.9

   Female

68

58.1

61

52.1

Age

    

   ≤ 45 years

77

65.8

34

29.1

   > 45 years

40

34.2

83

70.9

Race

    

   Malay

49

41.9

49

41.9

   Others

68

58.1

68

58.1

Religion

    

   Islam

52

44.4

52

44.4

   Others

65

55.6

14

7.7

Marital status

    

   Married

30

25.6

80

68.4

   Single/Divorced/Widowed

87

74.4

37

31.6

Educational level

    

   Lower (Non/Primary)

33

28.2

32

27.4

   Higher (Secondary/Tertiary)

84

71.8

85

72.6

Employment status

    

   Yes

23

19.7

60

51.3

   No

94

80.3

57

48.7

Financial aid

    

   Yes

11

9.4

-

-

   No

106

90.6

-

-

Relationship with patients

    

   Parents

-

-

51

43.6

   Others

-

-

66

56.4

Illness variable

    

Duration of illness

    

   <10 years

53

45.3

-

-

   ≥ 10 years

64

54.7

-

-

Onset of illness

    

   < 45

102

87.2

-

-

   > 45

15

12.8

-

-

No of hospitalization

    

   < 4

105

89.7

-

-

   ≥ 4

12

10.3

-

-

Attending day care

    

   Yes

16

13.7

-

-

   No

101

86.3

-

-

Types of medication

    

   Typical/Mixed

37

31.6

-

-

   Atypical

80

68.4

-

-

 

Mean score

SD

Mean score

SD

WHOQOL total

-

-

254.74

52.50

   Physical

-

-

66.62

14.36

   Psychological

-

-

61.32

15.52

   Social

-

-

62.72

17.33

   Environmental

-

-

64.02

14.86

BPRS

27.82

8.24

  

SRRS

107.66

86.92

  

N = number of respondents

SD = standard deviation

About half of the patients had had the illness for ten years or more. Only 10% of the patients had had four or more psychiatric hospitalizations in the past. About 14% attended one or the other rehabilitation activities at the hospital day care. A majority of them (60%) were receiving atypical antipsychotics.

In terms of the QOL scores, the means scores (standard deviation (SD)) of physical, psychological, social and environmental domains were 66.62 (14.36), 61.32 (15.52), 62.77 (17.33), 64.02 (14.86) consecutively. The mean scores (SD) of BPRS and SRRS were 27.82 (8.24) 107.66 (86.92) respectively. From bivariate analyses, a number of sociodemographic and clinical factors were found to be significantly associated with one or more domains of WHOQOL-BREF (Table 2). Duration of illness of less than ten years and patients not attending day care program were significantly associated with higher scores in all domains of the caregivers' QOL. Caregivers who received higher education (secondary level or higher) significantly had higher QOL scores in all domains. Caregivers who did not have medical problems significantly had higher QOL scores in physical, psychological and environmental. BPRS scores in patients were significantly and inversely correlated with physical and environmental domains of QOL (table 3) and SRRS scores in caregivers showed similar relationship with psychological and environmental domains.
Table 2

Patient, Caregiver and illness factors and caregivers' Quality of Life

 

Physical domain

Psychological domain

Social domain

Environmental domain

 

Mean ± SD

t

p a

Mean ± SD

t

p a

Mean ± SD

t

p a

Mean ± SD

t

p a

Patient factor

            

   Age

            

≤ 45 years (77)

> 45 years (40)

65.90 ± 14.96

65.03 ± 13.22

-0.789

0.432

61.53 ± 16.23

60.93 ± 13.08

0.216

0.829

62.35 ± 17.46

63.58 ± 17.27

-0.362

0.718

63.49 ± 14.98

65.03 ± 14.76

-0.530

0.598

   Gender

            

Male (49)

Female (68)

64.82 ± 15.63

67.93 ± 13.34

-1.128

0.262

61.02 ± 15.53

61.54 ± 15.63

-0.719

0.858

61.61 ± 14.80

63.60 ± 19.02

-0.611

0.542

63.53 ± 15.43

64.37 ± 14.54

-0.297

0.767

   Marital status

            

Married (30)

Single/Divorced/Widowed (87)

68.50 ± 11.47

65.98 ± 15.24

0.950

0.346

64.37 ± 13.60

60.28 ± 16.07

1.354

0.181

59.33 ± 17.69

63.95 ± 17.15

-1.243

0.220

64.57 ± 14.31

63.83 ± 15.42

0.252

0.802

   Employment status

            

Yes (23)

No (94)

69.43 ± 16.34

65.94 ± 13.85

0.947

0.351

68.96 ± 15.53

59.46 ± 15.02

2.646

0.012*

62.78 ± 15.50

62.77 ± 17.83

0.004

0.996

68.57 ± 15.47

62.90 ± 14.57

1.591

0.121

   Financial aid

            

Yes (11)

No (106)

65.55 ± 15.08

66.74 ± 14.36

-0.250

0.807

61.09 ± 15.16

61.35 ± 15.63

-0.054

0.958

59.00 ± 14.12

63.16 ± 17.64

-0.906

0.381

63.82 ± 19.69

64.04 ± 14.39

-0.036

0.972

   Educational level

            

Primary (33)

Secondary and above (84)

63.21 ± 14.64

67.96 ± 14.12

-1.596

0.116

55.58 ± 13.54

63.58 ± 15.74

-2.746

0.008*

57.55 ± 18.85

64.52 ± 16.37

-1.948

0.057

60.18 ± 16.35

65.52 ± 14.04

-1.652

0.105

Caregiver factor

            

   Age

            

≤ 45 years (34)

> 45 years (83)

68.41 ± 13.12

65.89 ± 14.86

0.907

0.368

62.03 ± 15.29

61.04 ± 15.70

0.317

0.753

61.91 ± 15.91

63.12 ± 17.96

-0.359

0.721

62.44 ± 13.22

64.65 ± 15.57

-0.769

0.444

   Gender

            

Male (56)

Female (61)

69.46 ± 13.61

64.02 ± 14.65

2.085

0.039*

62.71 ± 13.91

60.05 ± 16.88

0.935

0.352

64.16 ± 16.20

61.49 ± 18.35

0.835

0.405

64.29 ± 13.77

63.77 ± 15.91

0.188

0.851

   Marital status

            

Married (80)

Single/Divorced/Widowed (37)

67.63 ± 13.70

64.46 ± 15.68

1.055

0.295

62.61 ± 16.12

58.54 ± 13.94

1.397

0.166

64.00 ± 19.06

60.11 ± 12.67

1.306

0.194

65.51 ± 15.33

60.78 ± 13.41

1.693

0.094

   Educational level

            

Primary (32)

Secondary and above (85)

59.41 ± 12.64

69.34 ± 14.10

-3.670

0.001*

55.00 ± 13.30

63.71 ± 15.70

-3.000

0.004*

55.66 ± 16.32

65.45 ± 17.03

-2.858

0.006*

56.25 ± 13.91

66.94 ± 14.21

-3.685

0.001*

   Employment status

            

Yes (60)

No (57)

70.42 ± 14.10

62.63 ± 13.66

3.034

0.003*

64.18 ± 14.84

58.32 ± 15.78

2.069

0.041*

63.02 ± 16.03

62.51 ± 18.75

0.157

0.875

64.92 ± 14.22

63.07 ± 15.57

0.669

0.505

Medical problems

            

Yes (33)

No (84)

57.24 ± 15.48

70.31 ± 12.13

-4.351

0.000*

53.73 ± 15.44

64.31 ± 14.59

-3.388

0.001*

58.88 ± 16.54

64.30 ± 17.49

-1.568

0.122

58.85 ± 15.30

66.05 ± 14.26

-2.333

0.023*

   Dependent members

            

< 2 (12)

≥ 2 (105)

65.25 ± 14.52

66.78 ± 14.41

-0.346

0.728

62.00 ± 12.02

61.25 ± 15.92

0.198

0.846

68.83 ± 13.35

62.08 ± 17.65

1.601

0.129

64.08 ± 15.37

64.01 ± 14.88

0.016

0.988

Relationship with patients

            

Parents (51)

Others (66)

62.45 ± 15.23

69.85 ± 12.87

-2.785

0.006*

58.22 ± 16.38

63.73 ± 14.49

-1.897

0.061

62.25 ± 18.63

63.17 ± 16.40

-0.276

0.783

62.24 ± 15.83

63.39 ± 14.03

-1.124

0.264

  

r

p b

 

r

p b

 

r

p b

 

r

p b

SRRS

 

-0.1660

0.086

 

-0.205

0.027*

 

-0.146

0.115

 

-0.233

0.012*

Illness factor

            

   No of hospitalisation

            

< 4 (105)

≥ 4 (12)

66.98 ± 14.19

63.50 ± 16.13

0.717

0.486

61.96 ± 15.11

55.75 ± 18.52

1.120

0.283

64.06 ± 17.17

51.50 ± 15.07

2.694

0.017*

65.13 ± 14.44

54.25 ± 15.47

2.333

0.037*

   Duration of illness

            

< 10 years (53)

≥ 10 years (64)

70.08 ± 12.67

63.77 ± 15.14

2.455

0.016*

64.91 ± 16.05

58.36 ± 14.53

2.291

0.024*

68.87 ± 15.65

57.72 ± 17.14

3.673

0.000*

67.47 ± 14.63

61.16 ± 14.54

2.331

0.022*

   Onset of illness

            

< 45 years (102)

> 45 years (15)

65.73 ± 14.74

72.73 ± 9.84

-2.392

0.025*

60.96 ± 16.08

63.80 ± 11.09

-0.866

0.395

61.27 ± 16.87

72.93 ± 17.60

-2.409

0.027*

63.13 ± 14.62

70.07 ± 15.58

-1.623

0.122

   Attending day care

            

Yes (16)

No (101)

57.94 ± 15.49

68.00 ± 13.76

-2.450

0.024*

53.19 ± 14.78

62.61 ± 15.31

-2.359

0.028*

54.69 ± 14.04

64.05 ± 17.52

-2.389

0.025*

52.50 ± 14.54

65.84 ± 14.14

-3.424

0.003*

   Types of medication

            

Typical/mixed (37)

Atypical (80)

65.95 ± 16.22

66.94 ± 13.52

-0.324

0.747

59.14 ± 13.00

62.34 ± 16.54

-1.133

0.260

59.65 ± 15.62

64.21 ± 17.98

-1.400

0.166

61.73 ± 13.22

65.08 ± 15.51

-1.201

0.233

  

r

p b

 

r

p b

 

r

p b

 

r

p b

BPRS

 

-0.229

0.013*

 

-0.168

0.070

 

-0.181

0.051

 

-0.200

0.031*

SD = standard deviation

p = p value

r = Pearson correlation coefficient

pa = from t test if not otherwise specified

pb = from correlation test

Table 3

Correlations between WHOQOL domains and BPRS/ SSRS

 

Physical domain

Psychological domain

Social domain

Environmental domain

 

r

p

r

p

r

p

r

p

BPRS

-0.229

0.013*

-0.168

0.070

-0.181

0.051

-0.200

0.031*

SRRS

-0.1660

0.086

-0.205

0.027*

-0.146

0.115

-0.233

0.012*

Table 4 presents the statistically significant (p < 0.05) results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis of the association between the various factors and each domain of QOL. Some of the factors which initially showed significant associations with QOL through bivariate analysis became insignificant factors. Factors that were found to be predictive of higher QOL scores in physical domain were lower BPRS scores in patient and caregivers not having medical problems. Caregivers without medical problems were again found to be a predictor of the higher QOL score in psychological domain besides higher education level among patients.
Table 4

Multiple regression analysis of patient, caregiver and illness factors in relation to QOL

 

Physical domain

Psychological domain

Social domain

Environmental domain

 

B

p

95% CI

B

p

95% CI

B

p

A

B

p

95% CI

Attending day care

0.150

0.073

-0.58 - 13.032

0.129

0.146

-2.064 - 13.682

0.103

0.243

-3.571 - 13.942

0.228

0.009*

2.519 - 17.102

Duration of illness

-0.132

0.136

-8.782 - 1.213

-0.124

0.190

-9.626 - 1.933

-0.207

0.029*

-13.614--0.759

-0.090

0.322

-8.039- 2.666

Carer educational level

0.158

0.067

-0.359- 10.488

0.139

0.131

-1.456 - 11.087

0.203

0.028*

0.887 - 14.839

0.269

0.003*

3.110 - 14.728

Caregivers having

medical problem

0.286

0.001*

3.774 - 14.389

0.197

0.031*

0.637 - 12.913

0.064

0.477

-4.369 - 9.284

0.105

0.232

-2.239 - 9.131

Onset of illness

0.075

0.396

-4.274--10.706

-0.007

0.939

-8.997 - 8.327

0.195

0.040*

0.451 - 19.719

0.079

0.389

-4.526- 11.519

Employment status

-0.116

0.221

-8.664 - 2.024

-0.056

0.579

-7.916 - 4.444

0.044

0.660

-5.344 - 8.403

0.042

0.668

-4.482 - 6.965

Being parents

0.054

0.575

-3.919 - 7.026

0.059

0.564

-4.481 - 8.175

-0.113

0.268

-10.989- 3.089

-0.046

0.642

-7.238- 4.485

Patient's educational level

0.137

0.107

-0.958 - 9.684

0.204

0.026*

0.864- 3.172

0.182

0.046*

0.129-13.818

0.150

0.090

-0.775- 10.624

No of hospitalisation

0.059

0.485

-5.084 - 10.640

-0.007

0.937

-9.457 - 8.727

-0.081

0.368

-14.722 - 5.503

-0.084

0.336

-12.522 - 4.320

BPRS

-0.204

0.017*

-0.648- -0.064

-0.512

0.096

-0.624 - 0.052

-0.517

0.085

-0.705 - 0.046

-0.167

0.059

-0.614 - 0.012

SRRS

-0.104

0.211

-0.044 - 0.010

-0.612

0.071

-0.060 - 0.002

-0.103

0.249

-0.055 - 0.014

-0.182

0.037*

-0.060 - -0.002

For social domain, duration of illness of less than ten years and later onset of illness as well as higher patient education level were predictive of higher scores. Higher scores in environmental domain was predicted by patient not attending day care program, higher educational level and higher SRRS scores among caregivers.

Discussion

This study yielded two main findings. Firstly, among the patient and illness factors studied, shorter duration and later onset of illness, not attending day care program, lower BPRS scores and higher education among patients were found to be significant predictors of higher scores in one or more QOL domains in caregivers. Secondly, caregivers with higher educational level, not having medical problems and facing less social readjustment to recent life events were predictive of higher QOL in one or more domains.

Course of the illness, lack of social support and recent life events were the main factors found to be associated with a considerable impairment of caregivers' QOL in earlier studies (11, 20, 35, 36). Severe positive symptoms of schizophrenia such as hallucination, delusion, aggressiveness and destructive behavior are known to cause distress to the caregivers and lower their QOL (10, 12). It is suggested that the threatening nature of positive symptoms even though they are more episodic, as compared to the less threatening negative symptoms even though they are more chronic, make them more intolerable to caregivers (11, 12).

Wolthaus et al showed that disorganized symptoms in schizophrenia were predominant in causing caregiver burden. Furthermore, caregiver also need to cope with the unexpected symptoms of schizophrenia like delusions, hallucinations, cognitive defects, mood changes and also the social stigma related with the disease (14, 18). Stigma was not only been targeted on patients of schizophrenia, but was also referred upon persons close to the patients such as relatives, close friends and caregiver including mental health professionals (37).

The level of care burden generally reflects the QOL in caregivers (38, 39). Higher level of burden may come from longer duration of contact with the patient after they developed the illnesses (16)(40). This is reflected in this present study that later onset of illness and therefore shorter duration of caregiving is associated with better QOL. Patients with later onset of illness generally have milder symptoms as compared to those with earlier onset, therefore, explaining the better QOL of their caregivers (41).

The caregivers of patients who received more intensive care such as attending day care program reported significantly lower QOL. This probably due to more complex illness and higher needs in those patients as compared to their counterparts not needing an extra care, therefore, explaining the higher burden and lower QOL in their caregivers(36). However, this observation may be due lack of effectiveness of the current day care program. Therefore, further evaluation of the program in reducing the caregivers' burden would be very useful to answer this question. Other patient factors such as younger age, gender, financial aid and marital status were not significantly associated with QOL among caregivers of people with schizophrenia. Similar results were reported by past researchers (42).

Caregivers with certain characteristics are found to experience higher QOL in this study. Higher educational level appears to provide an advantage to the caregivers. It is speculated that better knowledge give rise to better capability to cope with their caregiving task as well as other stressors in life (10, 43). Caregivers with higher education possibly have more secured job and stable financial income that reduce the financial burden on caregiving task, thus improving their satisfaction for lives. Besides the extra income that work provides, it also serves as a respite or a diversion from caregiving task (ref).

Having medical problems was a disadvantage to the caregivers that affects their QOL in physical and social domains. This result is also similar to that found in earlier studies(10). This may be explained by the fact that physically unhealthy or sick caregivers would understandably less able to discharge their caregiving task and face more difficulties. In addition, this study found caregivers with higher stress level due to other concurrent psychosocial stressors had lower QOL. Apart from the illness, high pressure such as changing of jobs, lacking of social support and interpersonal conflicts were found to be associated with lower QOL (38).

As this study only include local population sample, the findings only represent the family caregiver population in the immediate locality. However it provides some useful information to the family caregivers and the service providers. Such information can assist the family caregivers to understand factors that might be contributing to their lower QOL and promotes their own prevention strategies. For service providers, supporting the caregivers in some of these modifiable factors in clinical practice is important to achieve their higher level QOL.

Conclusion

At present, the family interventional program is already an important element of community-based mental health services in Malaysia. The current focus of the service to improve the overall wellbeing of patient and families with high risk factors especially those who are dealing with more severe illness, having medical problems and distress due to other concurrent life events should be continued. However, further local studies are needed to assess the effect of such interventional program on caregivers using either case-control or prospective approach and in a more representative sample of Malaysian families.

Notes

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(2)
Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

References

  1. Keith SJ, Regire DA, Rae DS: The costs of schizophrenia: assessing the burden. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1993, 16: 413-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ministry of Health Malaysia: Schizophrenia report of Malaysia 2003-2005. National Mental Health Registry. 2007, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  3. Salina AA, Abdul Aziz A, Kadir AB, Badiah Y, Cheah YC: National Mental Health Registry's Report 2003-04. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2005, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  4. Salleh MR: The burden of care of schizophrenia in Malay families. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994, 89 (3): 180-5. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1994.tb08089.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wilkinson G, Piccinelli M, Falloon I, Krekorian H, McLees S: The experience of caring for former long-stay psychiatric patients. Br J Clin Psychol. 1997, 36 (1): 149-51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. McGilloway S DM, Mays N: The experience of caring for former long-stay psychiatric patients. Br J Clin Psychol. 1997, 36 (1): 149-51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Krautgartner M UA, Göessler R, Rittmannsberger H, Simhandl C, Grill W, Stelzig-Schöler R DD, Wancata J: Minor relatives of schizophrenia patients: burden and needs. Neuropsychiatr. 2007, 21 (4): 267-74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Maruish ME: The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment. 2004, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3Google Scholar
  9. Chen F-p, Greenberg JS: A Positive Aspect of Caregiving: The Influence of Social Support on Caregiving Gains for Family Members of Relatives with Schizophrenia. Community Ment Health J. 2004, 40 (5): 423-35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Awadalla AW, Ohaeri JU, Salih AA, Tawfiq AM: Subjective quality of life of family caregivers of community living Sudanese psychiatric patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2005, 40: 755-63. 10.1007/s00127-005-0947-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyck D, Short R, Vitaliano P: Predictors of burden and infectious illness in schizophrenia caregivers. Psychosom Med. 1999, 61: 411-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schulz R, Sherwood PR: Physical and Mental Health Effects of Family Caregiving. J Soc Work Educ. 2008, 44 (3): 105-13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Wolthaus JE, Dingemans PM, Schene AH, Linsden DH, Wiersma D, Van Den Borsch RJ, Cahn W, Hijman R: Caregiver Burden in Recent-Onset Schizophrenia and Spectrum Disorders The Influence of Symptoms and Personality Traits. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002, 190: 241-7. 10.1097/00005053-200204000-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rungreangkulkij S, Gilliss CL: Conceptual Approaches to Studying Family Caregiving for Persons with Severe Mental Illness. J Fam Nurs. 2000, 6 (4): 341-66. 10.1177/107484070000600403.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Cleary M, Hunt GE, Walter G, Freeman A: The patient's view of need and caregiving consequences: a cross-sectional study of inpatients with severe mental illness. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2006, 13 (5): 506-14. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2006.00972.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Roick C, Heider D, Bebbington PE, Angermeyer MC: Burden on caregivers of people with schizophrenia: comparison between Germany and Britain. British J Psych. 2007, 190: 333-338. 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.025353.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasanah CI, Razali MS: Quality of life: an assessment of the state of psychosocial rehabilitation of patients with schizophrenia in the community. J R Soc Promot Health. 2002, 122 (4): 251-5. 10.1177/146642400212200413.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tuti MD, Nursyuhaida MN, Nik Siti Fatimah M, Fatimah Hanim Z, Nor Akmar S, Siti Effa FMF, Khairunnisa MZ, Marhani M, Ruzanna Z: Stigma Arising From Family Members of the Mentlly Ill Patients in Hospital taiping. Malaysian J of Psych. 2009, 18 (1): 13-22.Google Scholar
  19. Kumar S, Mohanty S: Spousal Burden of Care in Schizophrenia. J Indian Acad Appl Psych. 2007, 33 (2): 189-94.Google Scholar
  20. Martin N: Quality of life as defined by people living with schizophrenia & their families. QOL Summary Report. Schizophrenia Society of Canada. 2009Google Scholar
  21. Ruzanna Z, Marhani M: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) For Patients with Severe Mental Illness: Experience In Malaysia. Malaysian J Psych. 2008, 17 (1): 73-78.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Health Malaysia: National Mental Health Policy of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur. 1997Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Health Malaysia: National Mental Health Act. 2001, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  24. Suarn Singh JS, Rashidi S, Cheah YC, Chanda M, Salina A, Norhayati A, Ruzanna Z, Marhani M: Malaysia Summary Report. Community Mental Health Development Project. Asia-Australia Mental. 2008Google Scholar
  25. Siti Salwa R: Quality of life and psychological well being of caregivers of patients with schizophrenia receiving assertive community treatment - a cross-sectional study. Kuala Lumpur. Dissertation Report National University of Malaysi. 2008, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  26. Salleh MR: Psychiatric Morbidity in Schizophrenic Relatives - Use of Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ). Singapore Med Journal. 1990, 31: 457-62.Google Scholar
  27. Dwyer J LG, Jankowski T: Caregiveing Relationship Reciprocity, Elder Satisfaction and Caregiver Stress and Burden. The Exchange of Aid in theFamily. J Marriage Fam. 1994, 56: 35-43. 10.2307/352699.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O'Connell KA: The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial:A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research. 2004, 13: 299-310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hasanah C, Naing L, Rahman A: World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment: brief version in Bahasa Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2003, 58 (1): 79-88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Holmes TH, Rahe RH: The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. J Psychosom Res. 1967, 11: 213-8. 10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Woon TH, Masuda M, Wagner NN, Holmes TH: The Social Readjustment Rating Scale: A Cross-Cultural Study of Malaysians and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1971, 2 (4): 373-86. 10.1177/002202217100200407.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Abdul HO: Life Changes Stress of Malay Students in the United States. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia. 1986, 2: 129-39.Google Scholar
  33. Chan LF: Risk factors and progression of suicidal behavior among inpatients with depressive disorder: A prospective study. 2008, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  34. Nora MZ: Psychiatric Morbidity and factors associated among caregivers of people with severe mental illness. 2002, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Gutiérrez-Maldonado J, Caqueo-Urízar A, Kavanagh DJ: Burden of care and general health in families of patients with schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005, 40: 899-904. 10.1007/s00127-005-0963-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ochoa S, Vilaplana M, Haro JM, Villalta-Gil V, Martínez F, Negredo MC, Casacuberta P, Paniego E, Usall J, Dolz M: Do needs, symptoms or disability of outpatients with schizophrenia influence family burden?. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008, 43: 612-8. 10.1007/s00127-008-0337-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Buizza C, Schulze B, Bertocchi E, Rossi G, Ghilardi A, Pioli R: The stigma of schizophrenia from patients' and relatives' view: A pilot study in an Italian rehabilitation residential care unit. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2007, 3 (23): Epub 2007 October 29Google Scholar
  38. Alejandra Caqueo-Urízar, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J, Miranda-Castillo C: Quality of life in caregivers of patients with schizophrenia: A literature review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009, 7 (84): Epub 2009 September 11Google Scholar
  39. Hughes Susan, Giobbie-Hurder Anita, Weaver Frances, Kubal Joseph, Henderson William: Relationship Between Caregiver Burden and Health-Related Quality of Life. The Gerontologist. 1999, 39 (5): 534-45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Fan CC, Chen YY: Factors associated with care burden and quality of life among caregivers of the mentally ill in Chinese society. Intern J Soc Psych. 2011, 57 (2): 195-206. 10.1177/0020764009348440.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Rajji TK IZ, Mulsant BH: Age at onset and cognition in schizophrenia: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2009, 195 (4): 286-93. 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.060723.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schene AH, Wijngaarden BV, Koeter MWJ: Family Caregiving in Schizophrenia: Domains and Distress. Schizophr Bul. 1998, 24 (4): 609-18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Sefasi A, Crumlish N, Samalani P, Kinsella A, O'Callaghan E, Chilale H: A little knowledge: caregiver burden in schizophrenia in Malawi. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008, 43 (2): 160-64. 10.1007/s00127-007-0276-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© ZamZam et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.