Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Assessment of the burden on caregivers of patients with mental disorders in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

  • Sami H. Alzahrani1Email author,
  • Ebtihaj O. Fallata2,
  • Marwa A. Alabdulwahab3,
  • Wesam A. Alsafi2 and
  • Jamil Bashawri1
BMC PsychiatryBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:202

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1368-1

Received: 26 January 2017

Accepted: 23 May 2017

Published: 30 May 2017

Abstract

Background

Mental disorders are considered important public health problems not only to people with mental illness but also their caregivers. As is the case in many countries, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services in Saudi Arabia, has meant that informal caregivers are shouldering responsibilities for which they are not usually prepared; therefore, the current study was aimed at assessment of the burden on caregivers of people with mental illness.

Methods

Through a cross-sectional design, a sample of the caregivers of people with mental illness (n = 377) was selected randomly from a psychiatric hospital in Jeddah. An Arabic version of the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ) was used for collection of data. The data were analyzed on the subscale scores and the 27 items in two ways. First, we used the summed scores for the subscales based on the Likert scale (0–4) for univariate and multivariate statistical analyses, as recommended. We also used parametric statistics (t-tests, one-way ANOVA) because the IEQ subscale scores were fairly normally distributed.

Results

Males constituted more than one-half of the participating caregivers (55%), with a mean age of 36.6, SD = 11.4 years. As reported by the caregivers, most of the patients were males (62.7%) with a mean age of 33.8, SD = 13.7 years and a range of 17–90 years old. The total mean IEQ burden score of the caregivers was 38.4, SD = 17.5. “Tension” was significantly prominent among younger caregivers aged ≤30 years. “Worrying” was significantly higher among caregivers living with their spouse and children and those living in families with relatively fewer members (<6 members). “Urging” was significantly higher among caregivers who are living with the patient in the same household and those who had been in close contact with the patient for 28 days in the four weeks prior to the study (13.4, SD = 6.8) p < 0.05. Meanwhile, “Urging” was also significantly higher among caregivers caring for mentally ill females (13.5, SD = 6.6) and those not receiving any kind of professional support (12.8, SD = 6.7). The overall burden and the subscale scores were highest among caregivers caring for a close relative such as a parent (44.1, SD = 17.6), son/daughter (39.1, SD = 12.9), sibling (37.1, SD = 18.6), or spouse (37.1, SD = 18.6) p < 0.05.

Conclusion

Care for people with mental illness is burdensome for their caregivers, the magnitude of burden is potentially augmented by factors related to the patients and households. These factors should be considered when planning for preparing caregivers to cope with people with mental illness in Saudi Arabia.

Keywords

Mentally ill Caregivers Burden Involvement evaluation questionnaire Saudi Arabia

Background

Mental illness is a leading cause of global burden of disease [1]. The burden arises from the distressing nature of mental illness, not only for affected people but also for their family members [2]. Until the mid-1950s, hospitalization of people with mental illness was the routine approach to manage mental illness in many countries. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the process of deinstitutionalization shifted the treatment of these people from state institutions to community care centers [3]. This shift had a substantial impact on the mental health system and the families of people with mental illness because family members were and continue to be often inadequately prepared to be the main caregiver for their ill relatives [4].

Family burden is viewed as the non-mediated effect on families living with and caring for a relative affected by mental illness [5]. There are two defined types of burden: objective burden, which refers to the observable costs to the family that results from the disease; and, subjective burden, which includes the individual’s perception of the situation as burdensome [6]. Specifically, the burden of caring for people with mental illness include disruption of everyday life routine, stigma and blame, dissatisfaction with family and relatives, financial problems, physical burden, troubles with adherence of the patients to treatment and problems with health services and governmental support [7]. It was not until the mid-1950s onwards that the experience of burden of informal family caregivers of family members with mental illness drew researchers’ attention’ [8]. However, while the burden on caregivers has gained considerable attention in Western countries, only a few studies have been conducted in the Middle East to assess the consequences for informal caregivers of caring family members with mental illness. These studies were conducted in Iran [9] and Kuwait [10] and were exclusively focused on caregivers of people with schizophrenia. Saudi Arabia has emphasized mental health as a national priority [11]. The Saudi government has recently passed a Mental Health Act (MHA) that includes support for family members and caregivers for people with mental illness [12]. Services are provided to the patients in the governmental hospitals. The commonest diagnoses include depression, anxiety, psychosis, organic brain syndrome, substance abuse and personality disorders [13]. Nevertheless, research conducted in Saudi Arabia has focused primarily focused on the hospital-based epidemiology of mental disorders and health-services research, leaving a large gap in the field of community mental health services [14]. For these reasons, the current study was aimed to investigating the consequences of caring for family members with mental illness on informal caregivers. In this respect, the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ) was considered appropriate, as it has been used in several other studies as being a valid tool for examining the consequences of caring for people with mental illness on relatives, friends, or other significant persons involved in providing informal, unpaid care [15, 16]. To overcome any concerns that the results could arise from intercultural differences and to facilitate international comparison based on the variation of local standards [15], the questionnaire was translated into Arabic [10] for use in the current study.

Methods

The caregivers of people with mental illness in a psychiatric hospital in Jeddah were invited to be enrolled in a cross-sectional study that was specially constructed for the study aims. Jeddah is the main seaport of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which, like most of the Gulf countries, has a conservative Muslim culture with traditional gender roles and an extended family system in which family social support is the norm [10]. The respondents (n = 377) were selected by systematic random sampling from the attendants of the psychiatric hospital. The caregivers of every second person with mental illness attending the outpatient clinic were invited to participate in the study. To fulfill requirements stated in the inclusion criteria, the cared for person’s mental health diagnosis was confirmed by the treating physician. After approval, participants were asked to complete an Arabic version of the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ), that was used before for collection of data in a similar study [10]. This version was adopted from the IEQ-EU [17]. It is an 81-item instrument that measures the consequences of psychiatric disorders for relatives of people with mental illness in the four weeks preceding the evaluation. Of the 31 items on caregiving consequences, 27 are grouped into four subscales, namely, “Tension” (9 items), “Worrying” (6 items), “Urging” (8 items), and “Supervision” (6 items). In addition, a 27-item total score (summed score for IEQ items 16–35 and 37–43) can be computed. However, two items (IEQ29 on sleep disturbance, and IEQ43 on global subjective rating of burden) are each included in two scales, based on a previous factor analysis report [18]. IEQ29 is included in “Tension” and “Supervision”, while IEQ43 is included in “Tension” and “Worrying”. These items are rated either on a five-point (0–4) Likert scale or a categorical (never/sometimes = 0; and regularly/often/always = 1) scale. The four items not included in the four subscales are IEQ36 (ability to pursue own activities), IEQ44 (getting used to a patient’s problems), IEQ45 (ability to cope with a patient’s problems), and IEQ46 (change in emotional relationship). The total Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency) of the IEQ items was: 0.93. The subscales internal consistency was: tension: 0.91; supervision: 0.81; worrying: 0.79; urging: 0.89 [10].

We analyzed the data on the subscale scores and the 27 items in two ways. First, we used the summed scores for the subscales based on the Likert scale (0–4) for univariate and multivariate statistical analyses, as recommended [17]. Data were analyzed using SPSS 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). We used parametric statistics (t-tests, one-way ANOVA) because the IEQ subscale scores were fairly normally distributed.

Results

Males constituted more than one-half of the participating caregivers (55%), with a mean age of 36.6, SD = 11.4 years, and one-half were married (50.4%) at the time of the study, while the rest were either single, divorced, or widowed. Most of the respondents had either a high school education (40.1%) or university qualifications (31.3%), and the majority of them were living in family contexts, as 41.7% were living with spouses with or without children, and 44.1% were living with close family members. Additionally, more than one-half of the caregivers (55%) indicated that there were six or more family members in the same household. Two-thirds of the caregivers (66.5%) had been living with the family members with mental illness in the same household for four weeks prior to the study (64.9%). The great majority of the caregivers (82%) had family income <7500 SR (2000 USD) [Table 1]. As reported by the caregivers, most people with mental illness were males (62.7%) 17–90 years of age with a mean age of 33.8, SD = 13.7 years. The majority of the people with mental illness were related to their caregivers in some way: parents (20.2%), sons/daughters (15.3%), siblings (40.9%), or husband/wife (8.2%). The caregivers stated that 16.9% of the family members with mental illness were not receiving any kind of support, while those who had support were receiving it mainly from the psychiatric hospital, either in the outpatient clinic (51%) or as a registered patient in the hospital (48.5%) [Table 2].
Table 1

Characteristics of the caregivers (n = 367)

Characteristics

No.

Percent

Gender

 Male

202

55.0

 Female

165

45.0

Age groups

  ≤ 30 years

128

34.9

 31–40 years

133

36.2

  ≥ 41 years

106

28.9

Range

20–85 years

Mean (SD)

36.6 (11.4) years

Marital status

 Single

118

32.2

 Married

185

50.4

 Divorced

44

12.0

 Widowed

20

5.4

Education level

 Illiterate

30

8.2

 Primary

25

6.8

 Intermediate

50

13.6

 High school

147

40.1

 University

115

31.3

Living arrangement

 Lives alone

25

6.8

 Lives with spouse/children

153

41.7

 Lives with family siblings

162

44.1

 Lives with other relatives

12

3.3

 Lives with friends

15

4.1

Number of family members in the same household

  < 6

165

45.0

 6–9

146

39.8

  > 9

56

15.3

Living with the person with mental illness in the same household

 Yes

244

66.5

 No

123

33.5

Days of contact with the person with mental illness in the past four weeks

 No contact

51

13.9

 Contact for 1- < 28 days

78

21.2

 Contact for 28 days

238

64.9

Monthly income in SR: SR = 0.267 US $

 less than 1500

48

13.0

 1500- < 2500

85

23.2

 2500- < 4500

91

24.8

 4500- < 7500

77

21.0

 7500–11,250

36

9.8

 more than 11,250

30

8.2

Table 2

Characteristics of the people with mental illness

Characteristics

No.

Percent

Gender

 Male

230

62.7

 Female

137

37.3

Age groups

  ≤ 20 years

31

8.4

 21–30 years

158

43.1

 31–40 years

100

27.2

 41+ years

78

21.3

Range

17–90 years

Mean (SD)

33.8 (13.7) years

Relationship with the caregivers

 Parents

74

20.2

 Sons/daughters

56

15.3

 Siblings

150

40.9

 Other relatives

20

5.4

 Husband/wife

30

8.2

 Friend

29

7.8

 Neighbor

8

2.2

Type of support

 No support

62

16.9

 Support from GP or family physician

16

4.4

 Support from social specialist

30

8.2

 Support from psychiatrist

87

23.7

 Support from outpatient clinics in psychiatric hospital

187

51.0

 Support as being a registered patient in psychiatric hospital

178

48.5

The total mean IEQ burden score of the caregivers was 38.4, SD = 17.5. The scores of the four IEQ sub-scales showed marked variance, with “Worrying” as the most highly affected, with an average score of (1.8, SD = 0.9), followed by “Urging” (1.6, SD = 0.8). The least affected were “Tension” (1.2, SD = 0.9) and “Supervision” (1.2, SD = 0.8) [Table 3]. “Tension” was significantly prominent among younger caregivers, where the average ranged between (11.0, SD = 8.2) and (11.5, SD = 7.7) for caregivers aged ≤30 years and 31–40 years, respectively, compared to (8.8, SD = 7.8) for caregivers aged ≥41 years. “Worrying” was highest among caregivers living with their spouse and children (11.7, SD = 5.3) and those living in families with relatively fewer members (<6 members) (11.5, SD = 6.0). Meanwhile, “Urging” was highest among caregivers living with the family members with mental illness in the same household and those who had been in close contact with the them for 28 days over the four weeks prior to the study (13.4, SD = 6.8) p < 0.05. Otherwise, no other characteristics of the caregivers were found to significantly affect their perceived burden (p > 0.05) [Table 4].
Table 3

Average scores of the IEQ burden subscale

IEQ subscales

Mean, SD*

Possible range*

Actual range

Mean, SD**

Tension (9 items)

10.6, SD = 8.0

0–36

0–36

1.2, SD = 0.9

Supervision (6 items)

7.5, SD = 5.4

0–24

0–24

1.2, SD = 0.8

Worrying (6 items)

10.7, SD = 5.6

0–24

0–24

1.8, SD = 0.9

Urging (8 items)

12.5, SD = 6.6

0–32

0–32

1.6, SD = 0.8

Overall score (27 items)***

38.4, SD = 17.5

0–108

0–108

 

*Based on sum of the Likert scale response options: 0–4 (Van Wijingaarden et al. 2000)

**Based on average of the Likert scale response options: 0–4

***IEQ29 is included in “tension” and “supervision; IEQ43 is included in “tension” and “worrying”

Table 4

Differences in the IEQ subscale scores according to characteristics of the caregivers

Statements

Burden subscales

Overall score

Mean, SD

Tension

Mean, SD

Supervision

Mean, SD

Worrying

Mean, SD

Urge

Mean, SD

Gender

 Male

11.2, SD = 8.5

8.0, SD = 5.9

10.6, SD = 5.6

12.3, SD = 6.7

39.0, SD = 18.7

 Female

9.7, SD = 7.4

6.9, SD = 4.7

10.9, SD = 5.6

12.8, SD = 6.4

37.8, SD = 16.1

P

0.083

0.063

0.655

0.484

0.531

Age

 ≤ 30 years

11.0, SD = 8.2

7.8, SD = 5.5

11.3, SD = 5.2

11.7, SD = 6.2

38.9, SD = 16.6

 31–40 years

11.5, SD = 7.7

7.9, SD = 5.3

10.4, SD = 5.3

13.1, SD = 6.6

39.9, SD = 17.9

 ≥41 years

8.8, SD = 7.8

6.5, SD = 5.3

10.6, SD = 6.4

12.9, SD = 7.0

36.0, SD = 18.2

P

0.034

0.126

0.439

0.192

0.264

Marital status

 Single

10.9, SD = 8.6

7.4, SD = 5.7

10.2, SD = 5.3

11.7, SD = 7.1

37.4, SD = 18.7

 Married

10.6, SD = 7.7

7.6, SD = 5.3

11.2, SD = 5.8

13.3, SD = 6.3

39.7, SD = 16.8

 Divorced

9.6, SD = 8.1

7.0, SD = 5.1

10.6, SD = 5.7

11.3, SD = 6.7

36.1, SD = 18.7

 Widowed

10.3, SD = 7.7

7.6, SD = 5.0

10.4, SD = 4.8

12.8, SD = 5.9

38.2, SD = 14.4

P

0.852

0.919

0.490

0.138

0.574

Education level

 Illiterate

11.3, SD = 9.6

7.1, SD = 5.9

10.3, SD = 6.6

14.7, SD = 7.4

40.4, SD = 20.5

 Primary

12.5, SD = 8.9

9.9, SD = 5.5

11.6, SD = 5.9

14.2, SD = 5.2

43.7, SD = 17.6

 Intermediate

9.8, SD = 6.8

7.4, SD = 5.0

11.1, SD = 5.1

12.3, SD = 5.7

38.3, SD = 14.8

 High school

10.6, SD = 8.0

7.3, SD = 5.2

10.2, SD = 5.4

11.5, SD = 6.7

36.9, SD = 17.5

 University

10.2, SD = 8.0

7.4, SD = 5.5

11.2, SD = 5.6

12.9, SD = 6.7

38.8, SD = 17.7

P

0.720

0.330

0.516

0.092

0.509

Living arrangement

 Live alone

13.4, SD = 8.3

8.1, SD = 4.7

9.0, SD = 5.4

14.1, SD = 7.7

41.0, SD = 18.4

 Live with spouse/children

10.1, SD = 7.2

7.0, SD = 4.7

11.7, SD = 5.3

13.4, SD = 6.0

39.4, SD = 15.0

 Lives with family siblings

10.9, SD = 8.9

7.9, SD = 6.1

10.4, SD = 5.8

11.6, SD = 6.9

37.7, SD = 19.8

 Lives with other relatives

8.8, SD = 5.1

7.1, SD = 3.6

9.0, SD = 4.4

13.5, SD = 6.8

36.6, SD = 14.6

 Lives with friends

8.9, SD = 6.0

7.3, SD = 5.4

9.1, SD = 5.7

10.7, SD = 5.4

34.1, SD = 16.6

P

0.331

0.670

0.038

0.072

0.717

Number of family members

 <6 members

10.6, SD = 7.9

7.4, SD = 5.0

11.5, SD = 6.0

12.9, SD = 6.7

39.8, SD = 17.4

 6–9 members

10.0, SD = 8.2

7.4, SD = 5.8

10.2, SD = 5.2

12.6, SD = 6.6

37.2, SD = 17.0

 >9 members

11.7, SD = 7.8

7.8, SD = 5.6

9.7, SD = 5.9

11.7, SD = 6.2

37.8, SD = 19.3

P

0.410

0.915

0.045

0.547

0.454

Live with person with mental illness in same household

 Yes

10.2, SD = 8.4

7.5, SD = 5.5

11.0, SD = 5.7

13.2, SD = 6.7

38.9, SD = 17.7

 No

11.4, SD = 7.2

7.5, SD = 5.2

10.3, SD = 5.2

11.0, SD = 6.0

37.5, SD = 17.3

P

0.207

0.883

0.242

0.004

0.507

Days of contact

 No contact

8.9, SD = 7.1

6.5, SD = 5.1

10.7, SD = 6.0

11.3, SD = 7.0

34.8, SD = 20.3

 Contact 1- < 28 days

11.1, SD = 7.0

7.4, SD = 4.4

9.7, SD = 5.1

10.4, SD = 4.9

35.7, SD = 13.8

 28 days

10.6, SD = 8.4

7.7, SD = 5.7

11.1, SD = 5.6

13.4, SD = 6.8

39.9, SD = 18.1

P

0.409

0.504

0.145

0.001

0.091

Monthly income

 < 1500 SR

11.1, SD = 8.7

8.4, SD = 6.2

9.3, SD = 5.8

12.6, SD = 7.4

38.4, SD = 21.6

 1500- < 2500

10.9, SD = 7.9

7.3, SD = 5.3

9.9, SD = 5.8

11.7, SD = 6.2

37.1, SD = 16.6

 2500- < 4500

9.9, SD = 7.7

7.0, SD = 5.1

11.1, SD = 5.6

13.0, SD = 6.9

38.3, SD = 17.6

 4500- < 7500

10.5, SD = 7.7

7.4, SD = 4.3

11.2, SD = 4.8

11.9, SD = 5.6

37.7, SD = 13.5

 7500–11,250

11.1, SD = 7.5

8.4, SD = 6.6

11.9, SD = 5.5

14.3, SD = 6.4

42.7, SD = 18.4

 more than 11,250

10.4, SD = 7.8

7.0, SD = 5.5

11.8, SD = 6.2

12.3, SD = 7.3

39.1, SD = 20.5

P

0.946

0.668

0.143

0.430

0.776

Regarding patients’ characteristics, “Urging” was significantly higher among caregivers of females with mental illness (13.5, SD = 6.6) and those not receiving any kind of professional support (i.e. family physician, psychiatrist, social worker and psychiatry home care programs) (12.8, SD = 6.7). The overall burden, as well as the individual subscale scores, were significantly affected by the relationship between the family members with mental illness and their caregivers. The highest score of burden was observed among caregivers of close relatives such as parents (44.1, SD = 17.6), sons/daughters (39.1, SD = 12.9), siblings (37.1, SD = 18.6), and spouses (37.1, SD = 18.6) p < 0.05 [Table 5].
Table 5

Differences in the IEQ subscale scores according to characteristics of the people with mental illness

Statements

Burden subscales

Overall score

Mean, SD

Tension

Mean, SD

Supervision

Mean, SD

Worrying

Mean, SD

Urge

Mean, SD

Gender

 Male

10.9, SD = 8.2

7.6, SD = 5.4

10.8, SD = 5.5

11.9, SD = 6.5

38.5, SD = 17.8

 Female

9.9, SD = 7.7

7.2, SD = 5.3

10.6, SD = 5.7

13.5, SD = 6.6

38.3, SD = 17.1

P

0.250

0.497

0.774

0.033

0.926

Age

 < 21 years

9.0, SD = 7.5

7.6, SD = 6.3

11.7, SD = 6.2

14.1, SD = 6.4

40.0, SD = 17.3

 21–30 years

10.4, SD = 7.4

7.5, SD = 5.0

11.1, SD = 5.3

12.3, SD = 6.6

38.3, SD = 16.1

 31–40 years

11.1, SD = 7.5

7.7, SD = 5.2

9.9, SD = 5.4

11.9, SD = 6.3

38.1, SD = 17.9

 ≥41 years

10.9, SD = 7.8

6.9, SD = 5.9

10.8, SD = 6.1

13.2, SD = 7.0

38.3, SD = 20.6

P

0.633

0.827

0.300

0.338

0.965

Relationship with caregiver

 Parents

13.2, SD = 9.7

8.4, SD = 5.7

11.7, SD = 5.5

14.6, SD = 5.8

44.1, SD = 17.6

 Sons/daughters

8.5, SD = 7.2

6.7, SD = 5.0

12.6, SD = 5.4

13.7, SD = 6.2

39.1, SD = 12.9

 Siblings

10.9, SD = 7.5

7.7, SD = 5.4

10.4, SD = 5.7

11.1, SD = 6.6

37.1, SD = 18.6

 Other relatives

8.5, SD = 8.9

7.0, SD = 5.6

8.5, SD = 5.7

10.8, SD = 5.5

32.3, SD = 19.2

 Spouse

8.8, SD = 7.2

6.7, SD = 4.9

9.8, SD = 4.9

14.3, SD = 7.8

36.2, SD = 18.9

 Friend

8.8, SD = 6.6

6.7, SD = 5.0

8.8, SD = 5.4

11.5, SD = 6.4

33.5, SD = 15.7

 Neighbor

9.7, SD = 6.1

7.2, SD = 6.8

11.7, SD = 2.8

10.7, SD = 67.6

36.8, SD = 14.6

P

0.011

0.458

0.011

0.003

0.036

Receiving professional support

 Yes

10.8, SD = 8.6

7.1, SD = 5.4

11.9, SD = 5.4

11.0, SD = 5.6

36.8, SD = 17.0

 No

10.5, SD = 7.9

7.6, SD = 5.4

10.5, SD = 5.6

12.8, SD = 6.7

38.7, SD = 17.6

P

0.769

0.554

0.078

0.050

0.476

Discussion

Family burden has become an essential indicator for mental health service provision; however, differences in social networks and culture could lead to variation in the experience of burden among caregivers of people with mental illness in different countries [5]. For example, in Arab countries in general, religious culture is most prevalent, and, among extended family, there is a tradition of rallying around those family members who are ill [10]. This could explain the differences in the overall IEQ burden score (38.4, SD = 17.5) observed among our caregivers as compared to the pooled mean scores from five European countries (50.6, SD = 16.3), where the highest mean score was reported in Verona (Italy) (56.6, SD = 18.6) and the lowest in Copenhagen (Denmark) (41.3, SD = 9.4) [17]. In a study done in Portugal, a much lower score was reported (30.2, SD = 14.7) [19]. Thus, any interpretation and comparability of the results from the current study with previous European reports should be considered with caution due to differences in social norms in addition to the extent of the services performed to meet each patient’s needs [10].

Regarding the age of the caregivers as a predictor for the magnitude of burden experienced while caring for people with mental illness, the reviewed literature revealed diverse findings; for example, while Juvang found that older caregivers of people with mental illness in China experienced increased burden [20], the reverse was found in the case of Mexican caregivers, where the younger caregivers felt the highest level of burden [21]. In our study, “Tension” was significantly prominent among younger caregivers, where the average ranged between (11.0, SD = 8.2) and (11.5, SD = 7.7) for caregivers aged ≤30 years and 31–40 years, respectively, compared to (8.8, SD = 7.8) for caregivers aged ≥41 years. The relatively lower burden among older caregivers could be explained by the acquired cumulative experience in dealing with illness and crisis among people with mental illness [22].

It was initially hypothesized that not only do caregivers’ characteristics affect their psychological state and the degree of the burden they experience, but the characteristics of the people with mental illness contribute to caregivers’ distress as well. In the current study, in contrast to the report from the EPSILON study that there was no significant difference by people with mental illness gender [23], our findings revealed that caring for female with mental illness significantly increases the “Urging” burden on caregivers. This burden was significantly higher among caregivers of females with mental illness, which is a fairly uncommon finding: few studies have reported that this burden was associated with caring for females [24]. This difference could be explained by the variation in cultural norms between Western and Arab communities. In this respect, Zahid and Othaeri stated that “issues related to women are handled with secrecy in the Arab culture, and it would be relatively more distressing if the females with mental illness behavior remained disruptive, especially as this would curtail her chances of marriage in a culture where traditionally arranged marriage is the order of the day” [10]. Another explanation was given by Winefield and Harvey, who referred to the gender difference of the people with mental illness as a determinant of the extent of burden on their caregivers as due to the differences in behavioral expectations for the two sexes. They also stated that perhaps “the effect of ill women on their children caused greater anxiety” as females are more likely to be incapacitated in caring for their children [24].

The overall burden, as well as the subscale scores, were significantly affected by the relationship between the people with mental illness and their caregivers. The highest score of burden was observed among caregivers caring for close relatives such as parents, sons/daughters, siblings, and spouses. This could be attributed to feelings of grief and sorrow for the family member [25], disrupted social relationships and isolation [26], and the consequent disturbances in daily activities required to fulfill the special care needs of the people with mental illness. This experienced burden among studied caregivers, as expected, was particularly apparent among caregivers who usually live with the cared for person in the same household. These findings are supported by previous studies which indicated that higher burden was associated with an increased number of hours spent caring for the family members with mental illness [18, 27]. When the responsibilities of caring for the family members with mental illness are distributed over more than one member of the family, the burden is expected to be much less [2830]. Accordingly, in the current study, “Worrying” was highest among caregivers living in families with relatively fewer members (<6 members).

Even after deinstitutionalization of caring for people with mental illness, the role of professional support cannot be overlooked. One role of professionals is to prepare caregivers for dealing with caring for their relatives with mental illness [31]. This notion was evident among our caregivers, where the burden of “Urging” was significantly higher among those who reported a lack of professional support.

Conclusion and recommendations

Care for people with mental illness is burdensome for their caregivers, the magnitude of burden is potentially augmented by factors related to the patients and households such as being a young patient, living with fewer family members, and factors related to the caregivers such as being a female closely related to the patients (mother, daughter or spouse). These factors should be considered when planning for preparing caregivers to cope with people with mental illness in Saudi Arabia.

Limitations of the study

The major limitations of the study are that it was cross-sectional, and therefore participants could not be considered as representative of all informal caregivers of people with mental illness in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, the impact of that only one of the caregivers who was in companion with the patients was interviewed. However, the use of an internationally validated questionnaire made our findings comparable with the international reports.

Abbreviations

IEQ: 

Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire

SPSS: 

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Dr. Adel Ibrahim for the detailed review and proofreading of the manuscript. We are grateful to Dr. Abrar Alshareef for her help during the data collection.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

All original data is available in the Department of Psychiatry, Mental Health Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Authors’ contributions

SH performed the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. SH, EO, MA, JB participated in the design of the study and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no Financial and Non-financial competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approvals and consent to participate

The protocol of the present study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of Ministry of Health, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. (Reference No. 00332). Written informed consent was obtained and documented from all participants. They were informed about the nature of the study and confidentiality of their response.

Disclaimers

None to declare.

Disclosure

No part of the article was presented in any conference proceedings.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Family and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University
(2)
Department of Psychiatry, Mental Health Hospital
(3)
Department of Medicine, Ministry of Health

References

  1. Mathers C, Fat DM, Boerma JT. The global burden of disease: 2004 update: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Heller T, Roccoforte JA, Hsieh K, Cook JA, Pickett SA. Benefits of support groups for families of adults with severe mental illness. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1997;67(2):187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Thompson EH Jr, Doll W. The burden of families coping with the mentally III: an invisible crisis. Fam Relat. 1982:379–88.Google Scholar
  4. Knudsen HC, Thornicroft G. Mental health service evaluation: Cambridge University press; 1996.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Zahid MA, Ohaeri J, Elshazly A, Basiouny M, Hamoda H, Varghese R. Correlates of quality of life in an Arab schizophrenia sample. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45(9):875–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jungbauer J, Wittmund B, Dietrich S, Angermeyer MC. The disregarded caregivers: subjective burden in spouses of schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(3):665–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Evensen S, Ueland T, Lystad JU, Bull H, Klungsoyr O, Martinsen EW, et al. Employment outcome and predictors of competitive employment at 2-year follow-up of a vocational rehabilitation programme for individuals with schizophrenia in a high-income welfare society. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2017;71(3):180–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Maurin JT, Boyd CB. Burden of mental illness on the family: a critical review. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1990;4(2):99–107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Malakouti SK, Nojomi M, Panaghi L, Chimeh N, Mottaghipour Y, Joghatai MT, et al. Case-management for patients with schizophrenia in Iran: a comparative study of the clinical outcomes of mental health workers and consumers’ family members as case managers. Community Ment Health J. 2009;45(6):447–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Zahid MA, Ohaeri JU. Relationship of family caregiver burden with quality of care and psychopathology in a sample of Arab subjects with schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10(1):1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Qureshi NA, Al-Habeeb AA, Koenig HG. Mental health system in Saudi Arabia: an overview. Neuropsychiatr dis Treat. 2013;9:1121–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Al-Habeeb AA, Qureshi NA. Mental and Social Health Atlas I in Saudi Arabia: 2007–08. Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit. 2010;16(5):570–7.Google Scholar
  13. Koenig HG, Al Zaben F, Sehlo MG, Khalifa DA, Al Ahwal MS, Qureshi NA, et al. Mental health care in Saudi Arabia: past, present and future. Open Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;4(02):113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hickey JE, Pryjmachuk S, Waterman H. Mental illness research in the Gulf cooperation council: a scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016;14(1):59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. van Wijngaarden B, Schene A, Koeter M, Becker T, Knapp M, Knudsen HC, et al. People with schizophrenia in five countries: conceptual similarities and intercultural differences in family caregiving. Schizophr Bull. 2003;29(3):573–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. van Wijngaarden B, Schene AH, Koeter MW. Family caregiving in depression: impact on caregivers' daily life, distress, and help seeking. J Affect Disord. 2004;81(3):211–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. van WIJNGAARDEN B, Schene AH, Koeter M, Vázquez-Barquero JL, Knudsen HC, Lasalvia A, et al. Caregiving in schizophrenia: development, internal consiconsistency and reliability of the Involvement evaluation questionnaire-European version. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177(39):s21–s7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Schene AH, van Wijngaarden B, Koeter MW. Family caregiving in schizophrenia: domains and distress. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24(4):609–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goncalves-Pereira M, van Wijngaarden B, Xavier M, Papoila AL, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Schene AH. Caregiving in severe mental illness: the psychometric properties of the Involvement evaluation questionnaire in Portugal. Ann General Psychiatry. 2012;11:8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Li J, Lambert CE, Lambert VA. Predictors of family caregivers' burden and quality of life when providing care for a family member with schizophrenia in the People's Republic of China. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2007;9(3):192–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Magana SM, Ramirez Garcia JI, Hernandez MG, Cortez R. Psychological distress among latino family caregivers of adults with schizophrenia: the roles of burden and stigma. Psychiatric services (Washington, DC). 2007;58(3):378–384.Google Scholar
  22. Baronet AM. Factors associated with caregiver burden in mental illness: a critical review of the research literature. Clin Psychol rev. 1999;19(7):819–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thornicroft G, Leese M, Tansella M, Howard L, Toulmin H, Herran A, et al. Gender differences in living with schizophrenia. A cross-sectional European multi-site study. Schizophr res. 2002;57(2–3):191–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Winefield HR, Harvey EJ. Determinants of psychological distress in relatives of people with chronic schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1993;19(3):619.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schulz R, Sherwood PR. Physical and mental health effects of family caregiving. Am J Nurs. 2008;108(9 Suppl):23–7. quiz 7View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Curtin T, Lilley H. Caring across community 2000–2001: carer education project for carers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Canberra, Australia: Carers Association of Australia; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. Suresky MJ, Zauszniewski JA, Bekhet AK. Factors affecting disruption in families of adults with mental illness. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 2014;50(4):235–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. BURDEN TOF. Current issues in family research: can the burden of mental illness be relieved? Helping Families Cope with Mental Illness. 2013;2:309.Google Scholar
  29. Ohaeri JU. Caregiver burden and psychotic patients' perception of social support in a Nigerian setting. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2001;36(2):86–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):160–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wynaden D, Ladzinski U, Lapsley J, Landsborough I, Butt J, Hewitt V. The caregiving experience: how much do health professionals understand? Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia). 2006;13(3):6–10.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017