Objective: The aim of our study was to identify the influence of such psychological factors as emotional intelligence and perceived competence on caregiver burden in those who care for patients with advanced cancer.Method: A total of 50 informal caregivers completed self-report assessments of resilience, perceived competence, emotional regulation, positive aspects of care, emotional distress, and burden. We conducted a quantitative study with a cross-sectional design. Descriptive statistics were obtained. Associations between the different variables were assessed using nonparametric and multiple regression analyses.Results: Participants were mainly female (88%) and had an average of 20 months of caregiving. Their mean age was 47 years (range = 20–79). More than half of scored high on resilience, positive aspects of caring, and emotional distress, moderately on perceived competence, and low on burden. Most caregivers used cognitive restructuring and social support as coping strategies. Inverse negative correlations were observed among emotional distress, emotional state, and burden with perceived competence and positive aspects of caring (p < 0.05). Significant differences were obtained for emotional distress, cognitive restructuring, and resiliency. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that perceived competence, resiliency, and positive aspects of caring were the main predictors of burden.Significance of Results: Resilience, perceived competence, emotional regulation, and positive aspects of care constitute protective factors against caregiver burden. Taken together, these aspects should be promoted by the healthcare staff in order to facilitate caregiver adaptation and well-being.

Background: The prevention and relief of suffering in palliative care are critical to the well-being and quality of life of patients and families facing life-threatening diseases. Many tools to assess different issues in health care are available, but few are specifically designed to evaluate suffering, which is essential for its prevention, early management, and treatment. Objective: The purpose of this review was to identify and describe existing instruments developed to assess suffering in palliative care, as well as to comment on their psychometric properties. Methods: A review of articles indexed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SciELO up to June 2011 was conducted. All articles reporting the development, description, or psychometric properties of instruments that assess suffering were included. An assessment of their psychometric quality was performed following a structured checklist. Results: Ten instruments that assess suffering were identified. Their main features and psychometric properties are described in order to facilitate the selection of the appropriate one given each patient's context. Conclusion: By taking into consideration all features of the assessment instruments under review, the evaluation of suffering can be made easier. A wide and ever expanding range of approaches is now available, which facilitates the selection of the suffering-assessment instrument that is best suited to the needs of the specific patient. One of the challenges ahead will be to further analyze the psychometric properties of some existing instruments.

Context: Suffering is a complex experience. Identifying its predictors is useful to signal at-risk patients. Objective: To identify suffering predictors in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care. Methods: A total of 98 patients participated in the study. A semistructured interview examining suffering levels and physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects was used. Instruments included Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), Detection of emotional distress (DED), and Structured Interview of Symptoms and Concern (SISC). Variance-based structural equation model was used for the data analysis. Results: All measures were valid and reliable. The structural model explained 64% of the variance. Suffering levels were directly determined by psychological and adjustment problems and indirectly determined by physical, psychological, and spiritual aspects and coping strategies. Conclusion: Our study supports the proposed theoretical model and signals the important mediating effect of psychological and spiritual variables between physical symptoms and suffering.