Observational study evaluates care partner strain and stigma in individuals with mild cognitive impairment, highlighting gender differences.
Background Caring for individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is increasingly recognized as a significant clinical challenge. However, the latent burden, driven by perceived stigma and gender-specific vulnerabilities, remains poorly characterized during these early stages of cognitive decline. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of care partner strain and affiliate stigma, and to identify independent correlates of psychological distress and protective factors among informal care partners of individuals with MCI. Methods We conducted a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study across 19 memory clinics in Spain. Care partners (n = 196) were evaluated using the Zarit Burden Interview, Affiliate Stigma Scale, and validated instruments assessing resilience, relationship quality, coping strategies, and psychological distress. Multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of burden and stigma. Results Significant care partner strain affected 59.7% of the cohort, while 39.3% perceived themselves as stigmatized. Multivariate analysis revealed that high burden was independently associated with anxiety symptoms (OR = 1.13, p = 0.017) and perceived stigma (OR = 1.07, p = 0.007). High resilience served as the primary determinant protecting the 60.7% of partners who did not report significant stigma (OR = 1.05, p < 0.001). Compared to their male counterparts, female care partners were significantly younger and reported higher levels of burden, anxiety, and stigma. Conclusions Care partner strain and affiliate stigma are correlated phenomena that emerge long before formal patient dependency. These findings underscore the need for gender-sensitive clinical frameworks and specific interventions that actively strengthen resilience immediately upon MCI diagnosis to mitigate early psychological deterioration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sánchez-Juan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: