SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3

EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN CAREGIVER BURDEN FOLLOWING THE TELEREHABILITATION PROCESS

TELEREHABİLİTASYON SÜRECİ SONRASINDA BAKIM VERME YÜKÜNDEKİ DEĞİŞİMİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Pınar Güngör Ketenci(T.C.Sağlık Bakanlığı İstanbul Erenköy Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Hastanesi)0000-0001-6154-8481
Özlem Öztekin(T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Erenköy Fizik Tedavi Ve Rehabilitasyon Hastanesi)0000-0001-9179-1551
Başak Bilir Kaya(T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Erenköy Fizik Tedavi Ve Rehabilitasyon Hastanesi)0000-0002-9586-9547
Pages
555–572
Publication Date
2026-09-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the overall model was statistically significant (F(11, 228) = 9.31; p < 0.001) and that the variables included in the model explained 31% of the variance in changes in caregiver burden (R² = 0.31).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The management of chronic diseases affects not only patients’ treatment processes but also the physical, psychological, and social burden experienced by their caregivers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to examine changes in caregiver burden before and after a telerehabilitation program, evaluate these changes separately within each diagnostic group, compare them according to sociodemographic characteristics, and identify factors associated with changes in caregiver burden.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the overall model was statistically significant (F(11, 228) = 9.31; p < 0.001) and that the variables included in the model explained 31% of the variance in changes in caregiver burden (R² = 0.31).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Telerehabilitasyon · Bakım Veren Yükü · Nörolojik Rehabilitasyon

Abstract

The management of chronic diseases affects not only patients’ treatment processes but also the physical, psychological, and social burden experienced by their caregivers. This study aimed to examine changes in caregiver burden before and after a telerehabilitation program, evaluate these changes separately within each diagnostic group, compare them according to sociodemographic characteristics, and identify factors associated with changes in caregiver burden. The study included the primary caregivers of 240 patients, comprising 90 patients diagnosed with hemiplegia, paraplegia, or tetraplegia, 60 with aphasia, 30 with cerebral palsy, and 60 with Parkinson’s disease. Data were collected using the Descriptive Information Form and the Caregiver Burden Scale. The telerehabilitation program consisted of 30 sessions, and assessments were conducted before and after the program. Following telerehabilitation, caregiver burden scores decreased significantly within all diagnostic groups (p < 0.001). Cohen’s d values indicated moderate to large effect sizes within each diagnostic group. The largest effect sizes were observed among caregivers of individuals with Parkinson’s disease and those with hemiplegia, paraplegia, or tetraplegia. Reductions in caregiver burden were more pronounced among caregivers who were younger, male, and had higher educational and income levels (p < 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the overall model was statistically significant (F(11, 228) = 9.31; p < 0.001) and that the variables included in the model explained 31% of the variance in changes in caregiver burden (R² = 0.31). The findings indicate that caregiver burden decreased significantly following telerehabilitation and suggest that this change may be associated with caregivers’ sociodemographic characteristics. Regular assessment of caregivers’ needs and strengthened support mechanisms for caregivers at greater risk are recommended as integral components of telerehabilitation programs.

Özet

Kronik hastalıkların yönetimi, hastaların tedavi süreçlerinin yanı sıra bakım verenlerin fiziksel, psikolojik ve sosyal yükünü de doğrudan etkilemektedir. Bu araştırmada telerehabilitasyon öncesinde ve sonrasında bakım verme yükündeki değişimin incelenmesi, bu değişimin her bir tanı grubu içinde ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmesi, sosyodemografik özelliklere göre karşılaştırılması ve bakım verme yükündeki değişimle ilişkili faktörlerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya hemipleji, parapleji veya tetrapleji tanılı 90, afazi tanılı 60, serebral palsi tanılı 30 ve Parkinson hastalığı tanılı 60 olmak üzere toplam 240 hastanın birincil bakım vereni dâhil edilmiştir. Veriler Tanıtıcı Bilgi Formu ve Bakım Verme Yükü Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Telerehabilitasyon programı 30 seanstan oluşmuş ve ölçümler program öncesinde ve sonrasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Telerehabilitasyon sonrasında bakım verme yükü puanlarının tüm tanı gruplarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde azaldığı belirlenmiştir (p<0,001). Cohen d değerleri, her bir tanı grubunda gözlenen değişimin orta ile yüksek düzeyde etki büyüklüğüne sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. En yüksek etki büyüklükleri Parkinson hastalığı ile hemipleji, parapleji veya tetrapleji tanılı bireylerin bakım verenlerinde gözlenmiştir. Bakım verme yükündeki azalmanın genç, erkek, eğitim düzeyi yüksek ve gelir düzeyi yüksek bakım verenlerde daha belirgin olduğu saptanmıştır (p<0,05). Çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi sonucunda kurulan modelin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu (F(11,228)=9,31; p<0,001) ve modelde yer alan değişkenlerin bakım verme yükündeki değişime ilişkin varyansın yüzde 31’ini açıkladığı belirlenmiştir (R²=0,31). Bulgular, telerehabilitasyon sonrasında bakım verme yükünün anlamlı düzeyde azaldığını ve bu değişimin bakım verenlerin sosyodemografik özellikleriyle ilişkili olabileceğini göstermektedir. Telerehabilitasyon programlarında bakım verenlerin gereksinimlerinin düzenli olarak değerlendirilmesi ve risk altındaki bakım verenlere yönelik destek mekanizmalarının güçlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ketenci, P. G., Öztekin, Ö., Kaya, B. B. (2026). EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN CAREGIVER BURDEN FOLLOWING THE TELEREHABILITATION PROCESS. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3, 555–572. https://doi.org/10.61859/hacettepesid.1817064

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Aktaş, İ., Bilir Kaya, B., & Kesiktaş, F. N. (2021). COVID-19'da tele-rehabilitasyon. İçinde P. Borman (Ed.), Fiziksel tıp ve rehabilitasyon ve COVID-19: Sorunlar ve rehabilitasyonu (1. bs., ss. 82–87). Türkiye Klinikleri.
  2. Aparicio, A., Inostroza-Correa, M. A., Miranda, P., Salinas, C., Herskovic, V., Chackiel, C.,. & Alarcón, C. (2025). The impact of technology use for care by informal female caregivers on their well-being: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02817-z
  3. Bettger, J. P., & Resnik, L. J. (2020). Telerehabilitation in the age of COVID-19: An opportunity for learning health system research. Physical Therapy, 100(11), 1913–1916. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa151
  4. Bilir Kaya, B., & Aktaş, İ. (2025). Telerehabilitasyon ve yapay zekâ. İçinde B. Bilir Kaya (Ed.), Yapay zekâ ve rehabilitasyon (ss. 64–69). Türkiye Klinikleri.
  5. Bilir Kaya, B., Güngör Ketenci, P., Öztekin, Ö., & Ceyhan, N. (2025a). Is telerehabilitation effective in Parkinson's disease?. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3279081/v1
  6. Bilir Kaya, B., Güngör Ketenci, P., Öztekin, Ö., & Memişoğlu, K. (2025b). The impact of motion capture camera-supported telerehabilitation gamification on upper extremity functions and quality of life in stroke and cerebral palsy patients. Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2025.16461
  7. Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, C. (2013). The pervasive problem with placebos in psychology: Why active control groups are not sufficient to rule out placebo effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 445–454.
  8. Chen, J., Jin, W., Zhang, X.-X., Xu, W., Liu, X.-N., & Ren, C.-C. (2015). Telerehabilitation approaches for stroke patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 24(12), 2660–2668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.014
  9. Chien, W. T., Norman, I., & Thompson, D. R. (2006). Perceived benefits and difficulties experienced in a mutual support group for family caregivers of people with schizophrenia. Qualitative Health Research, 16(7), 962–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306290140
  10. Ching-Wong, A. K., Ng, N. P., Ching-Hui, V. C., & Montayre, J. (2023). Effect of a telecare-based intervention on stress levels in informal caregivers of older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1167479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1167479
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. Biometrika, 38(1–2), 159–177.
  13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  15. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics 27 step by step: A simple guide and reference (17th ed.). Routledge.
  16. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  17. İnci, F. H. (2006). Bakım verme yükü ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması, geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  18. İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı. (2021). Yenilikçi İstanbul Mali Destek Programı (Proje Referans No: TR10/21/YEP/0039). İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı.
  19. Kairy, D., Lehoux, P., Vincent, C., & Visintin, M. (2009). A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(6), 427–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802062553
  20. Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  21. Kol, R., & Yılmaz Karabulutlu, E. (2021). Kronik hastalığı olan bireylere bakım verenlerin bakım yükü ve iyilik halinin değerlendirilmesi. Kocaeli Medical Journal, 10(1), 119–127.
  22. Laver, K. E., Adey-Wakeling, Z., Crotty, M., Lannin, N. A., George, S., & Sherrington, C. (2020). Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3
  23. McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 30.
  24. Nguyen, S. P., Tran, H. T., Nguyen, D. D., & Nguyen, B. X. (2025). Caregiver perceptions, practices, and challenges in accessing rehabilitation services for people with disabilities in rural Vietnam. Disabilities, 5(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5020044
  25. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250
  26. Rigby, H., Gubitz, G., & Phillips, S. (2009). A systematic review of caregiver burden following stroke. International Journal of Stroke, 4(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00289.x
  27. Schulz, R., & Sherwood, P. R. (2008). Physical and mental health effects of family caregiving. American Journal of Nursing, 108(9), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000336406.45248.4c
  28. Talwar, P., & Ganji, S. (2025). Correlation between activities of daily living in patients with mental illness and caregiver burden: A cross-sectional study. Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 34(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.4103/mjp.mjp_28_24
  29. Vitaliano, P. P., Zhang, J., & Scanlan, J. M. (2003). Is caregiving hazardous to one's physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 946–972. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.946
  30. Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20(6), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/20.6.649
  31. Zarit, S. H., & Zarit, J. M. (1990). The memory and behavior problems checklist and the Burden Interview. Pennsylvania State University Gerontology Center.
  32. Aparicio, A., Inostroza-Correa, M. A., Miranda, P., Salinas, C., Herskovic, V., Chackiel, C.,. & Alarcón, C. (2025). The impact of technology use for care by informal female caregivers on their well-being: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02817-z