Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: The Moderating Effects of Online Versus In-Person Social Support
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Procedure
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Demographic Questionnaire
2.2.2. Perceived Support
2.2.3. Caregiver Burden
2.2.4. Relationship Closeness
2.2.5. Caregiving Competence
2.2.6. Distress
2.3. Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Information
3.2. Correlations
3.3. Moderating Role of In-Person and Online Supports
3.3.1. In-Person and Online Supports Moderate the Association Between Relationship Quality and Burden
Dependent | Independent Variables | Unstandardized B Coefficient | Se | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burden Time-Dependence 1 | Relationship quality | −0.48 | 0.30 | −1.59 | 0.11 | −1.09 | 0.12 |
Online support | 0.14 | 0.10 | 1.34 | 0.18 | −0.07 | 0.36 | |
Online support × Relationship quality | −0.16 | 0.27 | −0.61 | 0.53 | −0.71 | 0.37 | |
In-person support | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.49 | 0.62 | −0.17 | 0.28 | |
In-person support × Relationship quality | −0.24 | 0.25 | −0.93 | 0.35 | −0.75 | 0.27 | |
Burden Developmental 2 | Relationship quality | −0.95 | 0.25 | −3.77 | 0.00 | −1.46 | −0.45 |
Online support | 0.30 | 0.09 | 3.38 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.48 | |
Online support × Relationship quality | −0.41 | 0.22 | −1.81 | 0.07 | −0.86 | 0.04 | |
In-person support | −0.04 | 0.09 | −0.46 | 0.64 | −0.23 | 0.14 | |
In-person support × Relationship quality | −0.23 | 0.21 | −1.09 | 0.27 | −0.66 | 0.19 | |
Burden Physical 3 | Relationship quality | −0.510 | 0.27 | −1.85 | 0.06 | −1.06 | 0.03 |
Online support | 0.203 | 0.09 | 2.06 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.39 | |
Online support × Relationship quality | −0.58 | 0.24 | −2.38 | 0.01 | −1.08 | −0.09 | |
In-person support | −0.03 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.75 | −0.17 | 0.23 | |
In-person support × Relationship quality | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.80 | −0.40 | 0.52 | |
Burden Social 4 | Relationship quality | −0.80 | 0.10 | −3.22 | 0.00 | −1.30 | −0.30 |
Online support | 0.27 | 0.08 | 3.07 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.45 | |
Online support × Relationship quality | −0.27 | 0.22 | −1.21 | 0.22 | −0.72 | 0.17 | |
In-person support | −0.03 | 0.09 | −0.41 | 0.68 | −0.22 | 0.14 | |
In-person support × Relationship quality | 0.04 | 0.21 | −0.23 | 0.81 | −0.37 | 0.47 | |
Burden Emotionl 5 | Relationship quality | −0.58 | 0.12 | −4.56 | 0.00 | −0.84 | −0.33 |
Online support | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.07 | 0.28 | −0.04 | −0.14 | |
Online support × Relationship quality | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.45 | 0.64 | −0.28 | 0.17 | |
In-person support | 0.10 | 0.04 | 2.11 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.19 | |
In-person support × Relationship quality | −0.52 | 0.10 | −4.85 | 0.00 | −0.74 | −0.31 |
3.3.2. In-Person and Online Supports Moderate the Relationship Between Caregiver Competence and Burden
Dependent Variable | Independent Variables | Unstandardized B Coefficient | Se | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burden Time-Dependence 1 | Competence | 0.23 | 0.29 | 0.80 | 0.42 | −0.35 | 0.83 |
Online support | 0.20 | 0.12 | 1.63 | 0.10 | −0.04 | 0.45 | |
Online support × Competence | −0.23 | 0.31 | −0.74 | 0.46 | −0.86 | 0.39 | |
In-person support | 0.003 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.97 | −0.22 | 0.23 | |
In-person support × Competence | −0.14 | 0.23 | −0.63 | 0.52 | −0.61 | 0.31 | |
Burden Developmental 2 | Competence | −0.38 | 0.26 | −1.43 | 0.15 | −0.91 | 0.14 |
Online support | 0.31 | 0.11 | 2.75 | 0.007 | 0.086 | 0.53 | |
Online support × Competence | −0.19 | 0.28 | −0.85 | 0.49 | −0.76 | 0.37 | |
In-person support | −0.13 | 0.10 | −1.36 | 0.17 | −0.34 | 0.06 | |
In-person support × Competence | −0.20 | 0.21 | −0.95 | 0.34 | −0.62 | 0.21 | |
Burden Physical 3 | Competence | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.87 | −0.49 | 0.58 |
Online support | 0.30 | 0.11 | 2.67 | 0.009 | 0.07 | 0.53 | |
Online support × Competence | −0.73 | 0.29 | −2.52 | 0.01 | −1.31 | −0.15 | |
In-person support | −0.016 | 0.10 | −0.15 | 0.87 | −0.22 | 0.19 | |
In-person support × Competence | −0.14 | 0.21 | −0.69 | 0.49 | −0.57 | 0.28 | |
Burden Social 4 | Competence | −0.004 | 0.25 | 0.015 | 0.98 | −0.51 | 0.51 |
Online support | 0.27 | 0.11 | 2.53 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.49 | |
Online support × Competence | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.94 | −0.53 | 0.57 | |
In-person support | −0.09 | 0.09 | −0.97 | 0.33 | −0.29 | 0.10 | |
In-person support × Competence | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.69 | 0.48 | −0.26 | 0.55 | |
Burden Emotionl 5 | Competence | −0.34 | 0.13 | −2.55 | 0.01 | −0.61 | −0.07 |
Online support | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.71 | −0.09 | 0.13 | |
Online support × Competence | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.45 | 0.64 | −0.22 | 0.35 | |
In-person support | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.08 | 0.12 | |
In-person support × Competence | −0.35 | 0.10 | −3.25 | 0.001 | −0.56 | −0.13 |
3.3.3. In-Person and Online Supports Moderate the Relationship Between Distress and Burden
Dependent | Independent Variables | Unstandardized B Coefficient | Se | t | p | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burden Time-Dependence 1 | Distress | 1.17 | 0.33 | 3.53 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 1.84 |
Online support | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.72 | 0.47 | −0.13 | 0.29 | |
online support × distress | 0.31 | 0.27 | 1.13 | 0.26 | −0.23 | 0.86 | |
In-person support | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.85 | −0.19 | 0.23 | |
In-person support × distress | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.86 | 0.39 | −0.35 | 0.90 | |
Burden Development 2 | Distress | 1.78 | 0.25 | 6.86 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 2.30 |
Online support | 0.17 | 0.08 | 2.10 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.34 | |
Online support × distress | 0.28 | 0.21 | 1.32 | 0.19 | −0.14 | 0.71 | |
In-person support | −0.10 | 0.08 | −1.26 | 0.20 | −0.27 | 0.06 | |
In-person support × distress | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.56 | 0.57 | −0.35 | 0.63 | |
Burden Physical 3 | Distress | 1.62 | 0.28 | 5.69 | 0.00 | 1.05 | 2.18 |
Online support | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.50 | 0.61 | −0.13 | 0.23 | |
Online support × distress | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 0.58 | −0.34 | 0.60 | |
In-person support | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.87 | −0.16 | 0.19 | |
In-person support × distress | −0.09 | 0.27 | −0.36 | 0.72 | −0.63 | 0.44 | |
Burden Social 4 | Distress | 1.48 | 0.25 | 5.72 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 1.99 |
Online support | 0.20 | 0.08 | 2.42 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.37 | |
Online support × distress | 0.47 | 0.21 | 2.21 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.90 | |
In-person support | −0.07 | 0.08 | −0.90 | 0.36 | −0.24 | 0.09 | |
In-person support × distress | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.47 | −0.31 | 0.66 | |
Burden Emotionl 5 | Distress | 0.75 | 0.15 | 4.8 | 0.00 | 0.44 | 1.06 |
Online support | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.76 | −0.08 | 0.11 | |
Online support × distress | 0.26 | 0.13 | 2.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.52 | |
In-person support | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.80 | 0.42 | −0.05 | 0.14 | |
In-person support × distress | 0.28 | 0.14 | 1.91 | 0.05 | −0.01 | 0.57 |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
SCI | Spinal Cord Injury |
FCSCI | Family Caregiver of an individual with SCI |
CBI | The Caregiver Burden Inventory |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1
Variable | Frequency | Percent | |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 3 | 2.6 |
Female | 111 | 96.5 | |
Do not want to respond | 1 | 0.9 | |
Age | 18–24 | 14 | 12.2 |
25–34 | 39 | 33.9 | |
35–44 | 27 | 23.5 | |
45–54 | 20 | 17.4 | |
55–64 | 9 | 7.8 | |
65–74 | 6 | 5.2 | |
Relationship | Spouse, partner, girlfriend, boyfriend | 110 | 95.7 |
Parent | 3 | 2.6 | |
Child | 1 | 0.9 | |
Other relatives | 1 | 0.9 | |
Living condition | Living together | 108 | 93.9 |
Living separately | 8 | 5.2 | |
Do not want to respond | 1 | 0.9 | |
Caregiving duration | 6–11 months | 24 | 20.9 |
1–3 years | 33 | 28.7 | |
3–5 years | 20 | 17.4 | |
5–10 years | 23 | 20.0 | |
More than 10 years | 14 | 12.2 | |
Do not want to respond | 1 | 0.9 |
Appendix A.2
Variable | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Online social support | 2.37 | 1.23 | ||||||||||
2. In-person Social Support | 1.03 | 1.15 | 0.106 | |||||||||
3. Burden | 2.68 | 0.838 | 0.275 ** | −0.026 | ||||||||
4. Burden—time-dependence | 3.61 | 1.27 | 0.140 | 0.023 | 0.727 ** | |||||||
5. Burden—Developmental | 2.998 | 1.21 | 0.293 ** | −0.092 | 0.890 ** | 0.501 ** | ||||||
6. Burden—Physical | 3.05 | 1.21 | 0.182 | −0.004 | 0.790 ** | 0.493 ** | 0.690 ** | |||||
7. Burden—Social | 2.41 | 1.15 | 0.294 ** | −0.066 | 0.782 ** | 0.367 ** | 0.638 ** | 0.515 ** | ||||
8. Burden—Emotional | 1.40 | 0.636 | 0.102 | 0.078 | 0.569 ** | 0.226 * | 0.531 ** | 0.241 * | 0.430 * | |||
9. Distress | 0.461 | 0.395 | 0.259 * | −0.017 | 0.667 ** | 0.368 ** | 0.627 ** | 0.558 ** | 0.560 ** | 0.436 ** | ||
10. Relationship quality | 3.00 | 0.451 | −0.087 | 0.181 | −0.412 ** | −0.183 | −0.422 ** | −0.265 ** | −0.378 ** | −0.365 ** | −0.353 ** | |
11. Caregiving Competence | 3.48 | 0.474 | −0.195 | −0.018 | −0.136 | 0.033 | −0.225 * | −0.094 | −0.055 | −0.266 ** | −0.339 ** | 0.309 ** |
References
- Charlifue, S.B.; Botticello, A.; Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.A.; Richards, J.S.; Tulsky, D.S. Family caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury: Exploring the stresses and benefits. Spinal Cord 2016, 54, 732–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reinhard, S.C.; Caldera, S.; Houser, A.; Choula, R. Valuing the Invaluable: 2023 Update: Strengthening Supports for Family Caregivers; AARP: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keihanian, F.; Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati, L.; Yousefzadeh-Chabok, S.; Homaie Rad, E. Burden in caregivers of spinal cord injury patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurol. Belg. 2022, 122, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schulz, R. Physical and Mental Health Effects of Family Caregiving. Am. J. Nurs. 2009, 108, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaVela, S.L.; Landers, K.; Etingen, B.; Karalius, V.P.; Miskevics, S. Factors related to caregiving for individuals with spinal cord injury compared to caregiving for individuals with other neurologic conditions. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2015, 38, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindt, N.; Van Berkel, J.; Mulder, B.C. Determinants of overburdening among informal carers: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeyathevan, G.; Cameron, J.I.; Craven, B.C.; Munce, S.E.P.; Jaglal, S.B. Re-building relationships after a spinal cord injury: Experiences of family caregivers and care recipients. BMC Neurol. 2019, 19, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weitzenkamp, D.A.; Gerhart, K.A.; Charlifue, S.W.; Whiteneck, G.G. Spouses of spinal cord injury survivors: The added impact of caregiving. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1997, 78, 822–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikari, S.P.; Gurung, G.; Khadka, B.; Rana, C. Factors influencing depression in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury and caregivers perceived burden in a low-income country: A cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord 2020, 58, 1112–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujinami, R.; Sun, V.; Zachariah, F.; Uman, G.; Grant, M.; Ferrell, B. Family caregivers’ distress levels related to quality of life, burden, and preparedness. Psycho-Oncology 2014, 24, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, J.J.; Oliver, D.P.; Washington, K.T.; Rolbiecki, A.J.; Lombardo, C.B.; Garza, J.E.; Demiris, G. Online social support groups for informal caregivers of hospice patients with cancer. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2020, 44, 101698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arango-Lasprilla, J.C.; Plaza, S.L.O.; Drew, A.; Romero, J.L.P.; Pizarro, J.A.A.; Francis, K.; Kreutzer, J. Family needs and psychosocial functioning of caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury from Colombia, South America. NeuroRehabilitation 2010, 27, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del-Pino-Casado, R.; Frías-Osuna, A.; Palomino-Moral, P.A.; Ruzafa-Martínez, M.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J. Social support and subjective burden in caregivers of adults and older adults: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0189874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraris, G.; Fisher, O.; Lamura, G.; Fabbietti, P.; Gagliardi, C.; Hagedoorn, M. Dyadic associations between perceived social support and psychological well-being in caregivers and older care recipients. J. Fam. Psychol. 2022, 36, 1397–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.-J.; Zhong, W.-X.; Ji, X.-D.; Chen, J. Depression, caregiver burden and social support among caregivers of retinoblastoma patients in China. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2016, 22, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tixier, M.; Lewkowicz, M. Design and evaluation of an online social support application for family caregivers. In Proceedings of the Online Communities and Social Computing—4th International Conference, OCSC 2011, Held as Part of HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA, 9–14 July 2011; Volume 6778, pp. 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klemm, P.R.; Hayes, E.R.; Cynthia, F.-B.; Diefenbeck, A.; Milcarek, B. Online Support for Employed Informal Caregivers Psychosocial Outcomes. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2014, 32, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cathcart, H.; Mohammadi, S.; Erlander, B.; Robillard, J.; Miller, W.C. Evaluating the role of social media in providing support for family caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2023, 61, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Youngvorst, L.J.; High, A.C. “Anyone free to chat?” Using technological features to elicit quality support online. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 203–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, C.C. Perceived social support for caregiving: Measuring the benefit of self-help/support group participation. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work. 1991, 16, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conti, A.; Clari, M.; Garrino, L.; Maitan, P.; Scivoletto, G.; Cavallaro, L.; Bandini, B.; Mozzone, S.; Vellone, E.; Frigerio, S. Adaptation and validation of the caregiver burden inventory in spinal cord injuries (CBI-SCI). Spinal Cord 2019, 57, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noelker, L.S. Promoting Positive Relationships Between Nursing Assistants and the Families of Cognitively Impaired Nursing Home Residents; Final Report to the Cleveland Foundation; A Benjamin Rose Institute: Cleveland, OH, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Whitlatch, C.J.; Schur, D.; Noelker, L.S.; Ejaz, F.K.; Looman, W.J. The Stress Process of Family Caregiving in Institutional Settings. Gerontologist 2001, 41, 462–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearlin, L.I.; Mullan, J.T.; Semple, S.J.; Skaff, M.M. Caregiving and the stress process: An overview of concepts and their measures. Gerontologist 1990, 30, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henry, J.D.; Crawford, J.R. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. Br. Psychol. Soc. 2005, 44, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dormann, C.F.; Elith, J.; Bacher, S.; Buchmann, C.; Carl, G.; Carré, G.; Marquéz, J.R.G.; Gruber, B.; Lafourcade, B.; Leitão, P.J.; et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 2013, 36, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Shieh, G. Clarifying the role of mean centring in multicollinearity of interaction effects. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2011, 64, 462–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, E.M.; Trail, T.E.; Vaughan, C.A.; Tanielian, T. Online peer support groups for family caregivers: Are they reaching the caregivers with the greatest needs? J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2018, 25, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trivedi, R.B.; Piette, J.; Fihn, S.D.; Edelman, D. Examining the Interrelatedness of Patient and Spousal Stress in Heart Failure. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2012, 27, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jones, J.M.; Lewis, F.M.; Griffith, K.; Cheng, T.; Secord, S.; Walton, T.; Bernstein, L.J.; Maheu, C.; Catton, P. Helping Her Heal-Group: A pilot study to evaluate a group delivered educational intervention for male spouses of women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2013, 22, 2102–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tixier, M.; Lewkowicz, M. “Counting on the group” reconciling online and offline social support among older informal caregivers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; pp. 3545–3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tixier, M.; Gaglio, G.; Lewkowicz, M. Translating social support practices into online services for family caregivers. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 10–13 May 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, S.; Gottlieb, B.; Underwood, L. Social relationships and health. In Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists; Cohen, S., Underwood, L., Gottlieb, B., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 3–25. [Google Scholar]
- Rodakowski, J.; Skidmore, E.R.; Rogers, J.C.; Schulz, R. Role of Social Support in Predicting Caregiver Burden. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreuter, M.; Butt, L.; Carroll, M.; Glass, C.A.; Oberg, S.; Ohry, A.; Richards, J.; Rutkowski, S. Family situation and psychosocial issues including problems that impact on partnership or resettlement in the home and into society. Spinal Cord 1999, 37, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becqué, Y.N.; Rietjens, J.A.C.; van der Heide, A.; Witkamp, E. How nurses support family caregivers in the complex context of end-of-life home care: A qualitative study. BMC Palliat. Care 2021, 20, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims-Gould, J.; Martin-Matthews, A. We share the care: Family caregivers’ experiences of their older relative receiving home support services. Health Soc. Care Community 2010, 18, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tao, L.; Hu, X.; Chen, H.; Xiao, S.; Zhang, X. Factors influencing the burden on spousal caregivers of breast cancer survivors. Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 7789–7799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, H.; Lee, E.O. Caregiver Burden and Social Support among Mothers Raising Children with Developmental Disabilities in South Korea. Intl. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2009, 56, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, N.I.; Nielsen, C.I.; Danbjørg, D.B.; Møller, P.K.; Brochstedt Dieperink, K. Caregivers’ Need for Support in an Outpatient Cancer Setting. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2019, 46, 757–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Powell, J.; Inglis, N.; Ronnie, J.; Large, S. The Characteristics and Motivations of Online Health Information Seekers: Cross-Sectional Survey and Qualitative Interview Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011, 13, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis-Devine, B.; Harker, R. Who Provides Informal Care? London: House of Commons Library; 22 May 2025. Available online: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10017/CBP-10017.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Guo, J.-W.; Reblin, M.; Tay, D.L.; Ellington, L.; Beck, A.C.; Cloyes, K.G. Patterns of stress and support in social support networks of in-home hospice cancer family caregivers. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2021, 38, 3121–3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bogle, V.; Miller, W.C.; Cathcart, H.; Mohammadi, S. Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: The Moderating Effects of Online Versus In-Person Social Support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071075
Bogle V, Miller WC, Cathcart H, Mohammadi S. Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: The Moderating Effects of Online Versus In-Person Social Support. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(7):1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071075
Chicago/Turabian StyleBogle, Victoria, William C. Miller, Heather Cathcart, and Somayyeh Mohammadi. 2025. "Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: The Moderating Effects of Online Versus In-Person Social Support" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 7: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071075
APA StyleBogle, V., Miller, W. C., Cathcart, H., & Mohammadi, S. (2025). Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: The Moderating Effects of Online Versus In-Person Social Support. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(7), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071075