On 2016 Apr 25, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 6 April 2016.

We enjoyed discussing this paper and felt that the authors used routinely available data innovatively to examine important health effects on a large number of bereaved informal caregivers, particularly exploring differences between those living with patients of different diagnoses. We were pleased by the inclusion of dementia and COPD, which are often neglected compared with bereaved caregivers of those with cancer. An interesting part of our discussion focused on those excluded from the study. A suggestion was that it would have been interesting to have divided the numbers in the first exclusion box of Figure 1, to identify the proportion of those without a cohabitee separate from those in non-eligible households (and the reasons for their ineligibility), particularly as these two groups comprised more than 75% of the data. We also wondered why the study solely focussed on spousal/partner caregivers, rather than other family members and friends? We discussed how the political landscape might impact on informal caregivers, for example the Care Act 2014. Given the future structural changes in funding caregiving, we found it interesting to reflect on how legislative changes may affect outcomes for caregivers. This interesting study recognises the important role that informal caregivers have in allowing people to die at home and ensuring their preferences can be met, but whose burden is currently under-measured. In future it would be useful to explore further the identification of informal caregivers on GP registers.

Commentary by Clare Pearson and Mendwas Dzingina

On 2016 Apr 25, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 6 April 2016.

We enjoyed discussing this paper and felt that the authors used routinely available data innovatively to examine important health effects on a large number of bereaved informal caregivers, particularly exploring differences between those living with patients of different diagnoses. We were pleased by the inclusion of dementia and COPD, which are often neglected compared with bereaved caregivers of those with cancer. An interesting part of our discussion focused on those excluded from the study. A suggestion was that it would have been interesting to have divided the numbers in the first exclusion box of Figure 1, to identify the proportion of those without a cohabitee separate from those in non-eligible households (and the reasons for their ineligibility), particularly as these two groups comprised more than 75% of the data. We also wondered why the study solely focussed on spousal/partner caregivers, rather than other family members and friends? We discussed how the political landscape might impact on informal caregivers, for example the Care Act 2014. Given the future structural changes in funding caregiving, we found it interesting to reflect on how legislative changes may affect outcomes for caregivers. This interesting study recognises the important role that informal caregivers have in allowing people to die at home and ensuring their preferences can be met, but whose burden is currently under-measured. In future it would be useful to explore further the identification of informal caregivers on GP registers.

Commentary by Clare Pearson and Mendwas Dzingina