Narzędzia do oceny obciążenia opiekunów osób chorych na epilepsję: przegląd zakresu
Burden assessment tools in epilepsy caregiving: A scoping review
W skrócie
Badanie przeanalizowało różne narzędzia używane do mierzenia stresu i zmęczenia osób opiekujących się chorymi na epilepsję. Naukowcy zbadali 60 badań z 24 krajów i znaleźli 18 różnych narzędzi - najczęściej stosowano ogólne skale jak test Zarita, ale okazało się, że narzędzia specjalistyczne dla epilepsji lepiej mierzą rzeczywiste problemy opiekunów. Badacze zalecają tworzenie specjalnych narzędzi do oceny obciążenia opiekunów dorosłych chorych na epilepsję, które uwzględniałyby unikalne wyzwania związane z tą chorobą.
Oryginalny abstract (angielski)
BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers of people with epilepsy (PWE) experience a substantial burden because of the chronic nature and unpredictability of seizures. Although several caregiver burden assessment tools are available to quantify this burden, little is known about which of these tools have been specifically validated for use in epilepsy caregiving across diverse global and socioeconomic settings. AIM: To map and evaluate standardised tools used to assess caregiver burden in epilepsy. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR and PCC frameworks, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched up to March 2026 for quantitative studies published in English. Data on tool characteristics, domains, and psychometric properties were extracted and synthetically analysed. RESULTS: Sixty studies conducted across 24 countries were identified, utilising 18 distinct tools. The generic Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI; 58.3 %) and Parenting Stress Index (PSI; 21.7 %) predominated. Reliability triangulation confirmed stable internal consistency for generic tools (α = 0.80-0.94) across translations. However, formal psychometric validation and advanced structural modelling (CFA/MI) were entirely absent. Domain mapping revealed that generic scales fail to capture epilepsy-specific distress, relying on broad stigma proxies and omitting nocturnal vigilance. Conversely, three paediatric epilepsy-specific tools (ESPBS, IPES, UW-CSS/UW-CBS) showed excellent reliability (α > 0.90), with the UW-CSS/UW-CBS incorporating "Benefit Scales" to track mastery. CONCLUSIONS: While generic tools like the ZBI are reliable standards, epilepsy-specific tools provide more granular and contextually relevant assessments of the caregiver's lived reality. There is an urgent need to shift from literal translation to rigorous structural validation of tool reliability and validity, and to develop dedicated, epilepsy-specific instruments for adult populations.