Analysis reveals critical relationships affect anxiety and depression in caregivers, indicating support is essential for well-being.
Background Little data exists on critical relationships for caregivers of patients with brain tumors, or how their social context impacts caregiver well‐being. Aims Our goal was to describe and categorize the critical relationships reported by caregivers of patients with brain tumors, and to assess the association of categories of critical social relationships with caregiver reports of anxiety, depression, and burden. Methods We analyzed baseline self‐report data collected from neuro‐oncology caregivers enrolled in a supportive care trial. Data included demographics, presence of critical relationships—a confidante or person contributing stress, anxiety, depression, and burden. Critical relationships categories were operationalized as: positive (confidant, no stressful person), negative (no confidant, stressful person), neutral (no confidant nor stressful person), and ambivalent (confidant and stressful person). Descriptive statistics were calculated. One‐way ANOVAs assessed differences between relationship category groups on caregiver reports of anxiety, depression, and burden. Results Data from 119 caregivers were analyzed. Caregivers had a mean age of 57 years (SD = 15), were mostly non‐Hispanic White (92%), female (70%), spouses (52%) of patients with grade 4 tumors (69%). Most caregivers were categorized as having positive (53%) or ambivalent (30%) critical relationships. Significant differences between relationship categories were seen in anxiety, depression, and burden (ps < 0.01). Conclusions Although most caregivers of people with brain tumors have confidants, many also identify people who contribute stress. The presence of stressful individuals can negatively impact caregiver well‐being in a way that is not counterbalanced by the co‐presence of a confidant. Future work should focus on helping caregivers manage stressful relationships. Study Registration The study was pre‐registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04268979. Analytic Plan Pre‐registration The analysis plan for this manuscript was not formally pre‐registered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reblin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: