Original Research

Extent of caregiver burden among informal caregivers of persons with severe mental disorders in rural South Africa


name here
Olindah Silaule
1 MSc(Occupational Therapy), Lecturer * ORCID logo

name here
Nokuthula Gloria Nkosi
2 PhD, Senior Lecturer

name here
Fasloen Adams
3 PhD, Senior Lecturer


*Ms Olindah Silaule


1 Occupational Therapy Department, School of Therapeutic Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown 2193, South Africa

2 Department of Nursing Education, School of Therapeutic Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown 2193, South Africa

3 Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, South Africa


2 June 2023 Volume 23 Issue 2


RECEIVED: 3 March 2022

REVISED: 9 January 2023

ACCEPTED: 19 January 2023


Silaule O, Nkosi NG, Adams F.  Extent of caregiver burden among informal caregivers of persons with severe mental disorders in rural South Africa. Rural and Remote Health 2023; 23: 7509. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH7509


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence


Introduction:  Informal caregivers are the backbone of recovery for people with severe mental disorders in South Africa, particularly in rural areas where access to mental health services is limited. While their unique contribution and the subsequent burden arising from occupying the role of informal caregiver are acknowledged, there is limited evidence on the extent of the subjective and objective burdens among informal caregivers of people with severe mental disorders in rural areas. This article reports on a study that aimed to establish the extent of subjective and objective burdens among informal caregivers of people with severe mental disorders in rural South Africa.
Methods:  A descriptive quantitative cross-sectional design was used. Data were gathered through structured interviews with 170 informal caregivers of people with severe mental disorders attending an outpatient clinic at a rural hospital in South Africa. A structured questionnaire guided the interviews and included demographics and caregiving characteristic information. Montgomery, Gonyea and Hooyman’s scale was used to assess objective and subjective burdens. Data was analysed descriptively using Stata v15.
Results:  The majority of the participants were female informal caregivers (83.5%) between the ages of 45 and 64 years (45.3%), and parents represented the largest proportion (45.3%) of caregivers. The global burden scores revealed that most informal caregivers reported moderate-to-severe objective burden and mild-to-moderate subjective burden. Significant associations with objective burden were established for age, gender and residence (p=0.025, p=0.034 and p=0.038, respectively), and subjective burden yielded significant associations with daily caregiving (p=0.012).
Conclusion:  Caring for people with severe mental disorders is associated with high levels of objective and subjective burdens. The present study highlights the need to integrate the assessment of burdens among informal caregivers of people with severe mental disorders in routine clinical practice. Additionally, the study urgently calls for the development of strategies to support informal caregivers to ensure successful community reintegration among people with severe mental disorders.


caregiver burden, caregiver stress, informal carers, mental disorders, South Africa.

full article:


Severe mental disorders (SMDs) affect 4% of the adult population globally and account for 26.1% of the reported cases of mental disorders in South Africa1,2. These disorders include major depressive disorder, bipolar mood disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders3. Although no official statistics exist on SMDs in rural South Africa, a profile of common causes of mental illnesses in Mpumalanga, a rural province, revealed that most patients were diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and substance induced psychosis4. People with SMDs experience a decline in function, and their ability to live independently is compromised. This dependency on others results in enormous social and economic burdens on themselves, their informal caregivers, and their communities5.

Caregiver burden is described as the strain encountered by a person providing care to someone who is chronically ill6, and can be categorised into objective and subjective burdens7. Objective burden relates to the tangible negative effects of caregiving that arise from the demands of the tasks required to care for a person with a mental disorder8. This burden is characterised by disruption in family routines, restrictions on families’ social and leisure activities, and additional financial costs incurred due to caregiving6. Subjective burden relates to the perceived feeling of getting overwhelmed as a result of providing care to a person with a mental disorder8. This burden is characterised by negative appraisal of the caregiving circumstances, which results in feelings of loss, guilt, shame, and anger7.

Studies conducted in Sub-Saharan countries found that the extent of caregiver burden among informal caregivers of people with mental disorders ranges between 60% and 90%9-11. Studies conducted in Ethiopia found that 63% of informal caregivers of people with schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder experience moderate-to-severe caregiver burden10. Similarly, a study conducted in Nigeria found that 45% of caregivers of people with major depressive disorder experience a moderate-to-severe subjective burden12. In South Africa, 43.4% of caregivers of people with schizophrenia were reported to experience severe caregiver burden13.

In rural and remote areas where general access to mental health services is limited, the sustained care and management of those with SMDs often becomes the responsibility of informal caregivers. The role of informal caregiving is often filled by family and at times by friends, neighbours, or any compassionate person, who are often unpaid while providing ongoing care to a person with an SMD14. Informal caregivers assume responsibility for the day-to-day needs of people with SMDs, manage their behaviour, monitor their mental state, and identify the early signs of illness relapse and deterioration15. Additionally, they are expected to supervise compliance with medication, provide emotional support, and help the people with SMDs access mental health services16-18. Most informal caregivers within rural and remote areas struggle to access mental health services to support them in providing adequate care to people with SMDs19-22. It is important to understand the extent of caregiver burden among informal caregivers because this forms the basis for the development of strategies to support caregivers in their role.

In rural South Africa, there is limited published evidence on the extent of subjective and objective caregiver burden among informal caregivers of people with SMDs. This study therefore aimed to establish the extent of subjective and objective burden experienced by informal caregivers. This forms part of a PhD project aimed at developing strategies for alleviating caregiver burden among informal caregivers of people with SMDs in rural South Africa.


Context and setting

The study took place in an acute mental health unit situated in Bushbuckridge municipality in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa. Mpumalanga province is a rural province in the north-east of South Africa. The population size of Bushbuckridge municipality is 546 215, and the municipality has an estimated average annual household income of US$850 (~A$1280)23. The acute mental health unit is considered the largest in the province, with a bed capacity of 50, and caters for a variety of patients, ranging from acute to chronic and forensic cases. Therefore, all patients with SMDs requiring long-term care are referred to this unit for further management. After discharge, patients with their caregivers attend follow-up visits at the outpatient clinic, which take place once per week at the mental health unit. Depending on the severity of their conditions, patients are required to attend their follow-up visit 1 month after discharge or every 6 months for review. If the patient is deemed stable after the first follow-up visit, they are referred to their local clinic for further management. Due to the limited mental health services in the province, the unit caters for a large catchment area, which was further expanded by the introduction of forensic services in 2014. As a result, there is a shortage of staff to cater for the needs of the patients and their caregivers. Currently, the unit has a multidisciplinary team consisting of a part-time psychiatrist and a medical officer who work 3 days per week. Nursing staff consist of a psychiatrically trained sister in charge of the unit, a professional nurse, and an auxiliary nurse per 7-day shift. One social worker, a registered counsellor, and two occupational therapists facilitate the rehabilitation programs for both in- and outpatients in the unit. At the local clinics there are nursing staff, and a medical officer who visits the clinic once a month to offer mental health services.

Study design

This study used a quantitative, descriptive cross-sectional design. The data were generated through structured interviews with the participants.

Measures:  The demographic and caregiving characteristics were gathered using a questionnaire developed by the first author from existing literature. The burden measure developed by Montgomery, et al24 was used to measure objective and subjective burdens. This scale was considered appropriate as it is multidimensional, and therefore provides aggregate scores for objective and subjective burdens. This instrument comprises the following 22 items: 9 items on objective burden with a Cronbach alpha of 0.85, and 13 items on subjective burden with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86. Each subscale item is rated using a five-point Likert scale (Table 1). For objective burden, the global scores range from 9 to 45, with higher scores indicating a higher burden, and the subjective burden global scores range from 13 to 65, with the higher scores indicating a higher burden. Table 2 outlines the five categories representing the levels of severity for both objective and subjective burdens24.

Permission was received from the instrument developers to use and modify the instrument for the study context. A pilot study was conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the burden measure. Face validity, a subset of content validity, was conducted by inviting six participants who were considered knowledgeable in mental health to give their subjective opinions on whether the instrument measured the objective and subjective burdens as intended25. The identified participants rated each subscale item using four categories: relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity25. Items requiring revision were modified for clarity based on the recommendations of the participants. Prior to data collection, the revised scale was sent back to the pilot participants for the finalisation of the items on the instrument. In addition, the inter-rater reliability was conducted to determine the reproducibility of the results when using the burden measure. The researcher and two trained research assistants were required to independently administer the burden measure, with 10 informal caregivers recruited from the research site. These informal caregivers were excluded from the overall sample of the study. A standardised instruction sheet was used to ensure homogeneity in the process followed by the three raters. A weighted kappa was calculated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v27 (IBM; https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics) to determine the level of agreement between the raters. Landis and Koch’s classification was used to determine the acceptable kappa value, where 0 was regarded as poor agreement, 0.00–0.20 as slight agreement, 0.21–0.40 as fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 as moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 as substantial agreement, and 0.81–1.00 as almost perfect26. The weighted kappa value of 0.69–0.86 was established as indicating a substantial to almost-perfect agreement between the three raters, proving the reproducibility of the results when using the Montgomery, Gonyea, and Hooyman burden measure26.

Table 1:  Objective and subjective burdens subscale score descriptorstable image

Table 2:  Objective and subjective burdens severity categoriestable image

Data collection:  Data were collected using structured interviews conducted by the first author along with two trained research assistants. This process took place over a period of 6 months, starting from March 2021.

Sampling size and method:  To estimate the sample size of the informal caregivers, sample size calculations were based on the number of patients attending the outpatient clinic at the research site with an assumption that each patient has one informal caregiver. An estimated number of 353 mental healthcare users were identified as attending the outpatient clinic at the research site per month. Therefore, a sample size of 185 informal caregivers was required when the margins of the error were set at 5% with a confidence interval of 95% on Cochrane’s formula27. A non-probability convenience sampling method was used to recruit informal caregivers of people with SMDs who accompanied their care recipients to follow-up visits at the outpatient clinic. Participants were approached in the queues as they waited to be seen by the doctor. The purpose of the study was explained to the group of informal caregivers, and those willing to participate were interviewed in a separate room before or after being seen by the doctor, depending on their preference.

Inclusion criteria:  A set of inclusion criteria was used to identify suitable participants for the study. The inclusion criteria were (1) informal caregivers included a family member, a relative, a friend, or any person who provided unpaid care to a person with an SMD; (2) the informal caregiver had provided continuous care for the person with an SMD for more than 6 months; (3) the age of the informal caregiver was more than 18 years; and (4) the informal caregiver performed activities associated with caregiving at least once a week (administering medication, assisting with and structuring daily activities). Informal caregivers with physical conditions or chronic illnesses (including mental conditions) were excluded to avoid confounding factors that could arise from difficulty in dissociating the burden resulting from caregiving and the burden caused by their own disability or illness.

Statistical analysis:  Stata v15 software was used for the data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the demographic and caregiving characteristics of the informal caregivers, the severity of the objective and subjective burdens, and the level of burden projected by each item on the two subscales. To determine the level and severity of objective and subjective burdens, the data were collapsed into three categories and the ratings of each subscale were grouped together. Categories were collapsed to produce summary statistics and enable better data management (Tables 1, 2). In addition, for the purpose of this study, the severity of the burden was identified based on the three revised categories for both objective and subjective burdens (Tables 1, 2). The Pearson χ2 was computed to test the association between the objective and subjective burdens with demographic and caregiving characteristics. 

Ethics approval

Ethics clearance (M200957) was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the CEO of the research site, and the Mpumalanga Department of Health Research Committee granted final approval (MP_202010_010). All participants were required to sign an informed consent form declaring their willingness to engage in the study. Each participant was allocated a unique participant code to ensure the anonymity of the data.


Demographic characteristics of informal caregivers

The results of the study as outlined in Tables 3 and 4 reveal that most of the informal caregivers were female (83.5%) in middle-to-late adulthood, with the majority (45.3%) in the age range of 45–64 years, followed by those in early-to-middle adulthood with the age range of 34 years and younger (34%). Many informal caregivers reported being single (57.1%) with a high school level of education (53.0%). Participants who were unemployed and dependent on a social grant formed the majority of the sample (39.4%).

Table 3:  Associations between the demographic characteristics and levels of objective caregiver burden (n=170)table image

Table 4:  Associations between the demographic characteristics and levels of subjective caregiver burden (n=170)table image

Caregiving characteristics of informal caregivers

Most informal caregivers were parents of the care recipient (45.3%), followed by siblings (24.7%), and the majority of caregivers resided at the same residence as their care recipient (81.2%). The majority of the sample (47.0%) had been providing care for the individual for 5 years or less. The hours spent in daily caregiving varied between one and 24 hours, and most of the informal caregivers spent 8 hours or less daily (53.5%), followed by those who spent 19–24 hours daily (28.8%). The care recipients were diagnosed mainly with schizophrenia (52.8%), and those with a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified accounted for 27.1% of those receiving care from informal caregivers. Care recipients with bipolar mood disorder, substance-induced psychosis, and major depressive disorder accounted for 10.6%, 7.1% and 2.4% of care recipients, respectively. Most of the participants (61.8%) spent less than 100 South African rand (~A$8) per month, with some (34.1%) spending up to 500 South African rand (~A$40) per month for the medical costs of the care recipients (Tables 5, 6).

Table 5:  Associations between the caregiving characteristics and levels of objective caregiver burden (n=170)table image

Table 6:  Associations between the caregiving characteristics and levels of subjective caregiver burden (n=170)table image

Associations between caregiver burden and demographic characteristics

The results revealed a significant association between gender and objective burden. Female participants reported a significantly higher burden than males, with most (49.3%) reporting moderate-to-severe objective burden (X² (2)=7.39; p=0.025). Similarly, the associations between age and objective burden yielded significant results, with many informal caregivers aged between 45 and 65 years (46.8%) reporting moderate-to-severe burden (X² (6)=13.66; p=0.034). Thus, older caregivers reported a higher burden of care. While most participants were unemployed and dependent on a social grant, the findings revealed that the associations between employment status and objective burden were statistically insignificant. The associations between the demographic characteristics and subjective burden were not statistically significant (p>0.05; Tables 3, 4).

Associations between caregiver burden and caregiving characteristics

The informal caregivers who resided with care recipients reported significantly higher objective burden, with most participants (45.7%) reporting moderate-to-severe burden ((6)=6.55; p=0.038). The associations between objective burden and other caregiving characteristics were not significant (p>0.05). The associations between daily caregiving and subjective burden yielded significant results, with most informal caregivers (53.1%) who provided care for 19–24 hours reporting a moderate-to-severe burden ((4)=12.84; p=0.012). No associations were established between subjective burden and other caregiving characteristics (p>0.05; Tables 5, 6). While there were no significant associations between care recipients’ diagnoses and objective and subjective burdens, it is important to note the levels of these burdens (Tables 5, 6).

Objective and subjective burdens global scores

The global burden scores revealed considerable burden among the informal caregivers. Most informal caregivers (44.7%) reported moderate-to-severe objective burden, followed by those who reported mild-to-moderate burden (31.2%). Those with no burden to minimal objective burden accounted for 24.1% of the sample (Fig1). Similarly, most informal caregivers (60%) reported mild-to-moderate subjective burden, while 35.9% reported moderate-to-severe subjective burden, and the least number of participants (4.1%) reported no burden to minimal subjective burden (Fig2).

table image Figure 1:  Informal caregiver objective burden global scores (n=170)

table image Figure 2:  Informal caregiver subjective burden global scores (n=170)


The global burden scores for both objective and subjective burdens revealed a higher burden among the informal caregivers in rural South Africa. A majority of the informal caregivers (44.7%) reported moderate-to-severe objective burden, and 35.8% reported moderate-to-severe subjective burden. This indicates that the severity of objective burden was higher than that of subjective burden. The results of this study differ from previous studies conducted in Sweden and Nigeria that reported higher subjective burden among informal caregivers of people with schizophrenia8,28,29. Additionally, a study conducted in Nigeria indicated that 45% of informal caregivers of people with major depressive disorder reported moderate-to-severe subjective burden12.

The higher levels of objective burden can be attributed to various factors, including the gender and age of the informal caregiver. In the present study, most of the informal caregivers were women (83.5%), with significant associations established between gender and the objective burden reported by informal caregivers (p=0.025). This is consistent with previous studies conducted in other developing countries, including South Africa, that identified that most informal caregivers tend to be women11,13,30-33. These findings are not surprising as caregiving is considered a traditional role that best fits women in the home and community13,33.

Female informal caregivers occupy many roles that predispose them to higher burdens than their male counterparts. The roles include being a mother, worker, house maintainer and key emotional supporter11. A study conducted in India among informal caregivers of people with bipolar mood disorder highlighted that cultural issues such as restriction of females to household duties, the inability to spend time on leisure activities, and the financial dependency were associated with high burden among informal caregivers33. In rural South Africa, women are responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of households and, as a result, when a responsibility for caregiving arises, their routines are disrupted, resulting in less time for self and socialisation, leading to objective burden34. Therefore, the findings in this study highlight that gender can be considered a predictor for objective burden among informal caregivers of those with SMDs35,36.

The results revealed non-significant associations between objective burden and employment status; however, it is important to note that both employed and unemployed informal caregivers reported higher levels of objective burden. It could be that the informal caregivers struggled to meet the expenses of the household and provide for the needs of the care recipients in spite of their employment status. The results in this study are similar to a study conducted in rural Ethiopia that revealed that caregivers reported higher levels of burden related to financial problems, often due to the cost of treatment37. The informal caregivers in this study were expected to meet basic household expenses, and they were required to deal with the additional cost of providing care, which includes covering the transport costs to the hospital for follow-ups. Marimbe et al highlighted that the increased financial burden may be related to the fact that some informal caregivers frequently forego economic opportunities to fulfil their caregiving responsibilities33. It is therefore necessary to plan and implement community-based programs that enable caregivers to take up income-generating roles to increase household income38.

Although no significant associations were established between subjective burden and the demographic characteristics of the informal caregivers, most males (71.4%) and females (57.8%) reported mild-to-moderate subjective burden. This highlights that male caregivers in this study reported the same level of subjective burden as females. These findings differ from previous studies conducted in Sweden and Nigeria that reported that females experienced higher subjective burden than men29,38. The findings of the present study are worth noting as they emphasise that research aimed at developing strategies for alleviating subjective burden should focus on the needs of both male and female caregivers.

The majority of the informal caregivers in this study were older adults in middle-to-late adulthood, and many were aged between 45 and 65 years (45.3%), with some aged 65 years or more (15.3%). These findings are consistent with a study conducted in South Africa that revealed that most caregivers are above the age of 55 years and that 15.8% are above the age of 65 years13. The increased age of the informal caregivers in this study yielded a significant association with established levels of objective burden (p=0.034). These results are concerning as old age is associated with poor quality of life and a decline in health caused by comorbidities13. Additionally, older caregivers often have decreased energy levels to perform daily activities, reducing their ability to cope with the demands of caregiving6,36,38,39. The age of the informal caregivers and the schizophrenia diagnosis of most of the care recipients in this study are concerning facts given the recovery patterns of this mental disorder. Schizophrenia is associated with serious functional and social impairments as well as unpredictable and risky or even hostile behaviours, which demand more time and structure from informal caregivers40-45. Considering declining health and energy levels among elderly people, this means that the burden of care becomes the responsibility of those who may be struggling to care for themselves, and this may have serious consequences for continuity of care for the care recipients. In a resource-constrained context like rural South Africa, there is limited access to mental health services, and thus informal caregivers are the backbone of recovery for mental healthcare users. The combination of a resource-constrained healthcare system and the advanced age of caregivers poses a serious threat to the quality of caregiving, which can aggravate relapses in people with SMDs46. Therefore, this is likely to perpetuate a cycle of the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon that is constantly crippling the mental health system in South Africa47.

Most informal caregivers in early-to-middle adulthood (35–44 years) reported a moderate-to-severe subjective burden (54.6%). Most caregivers at this age are in their productive stage and actively participating in working life27. In this study, 22 (13%) informal caregivers reported being in full-time employment. According to Flyckt, et al, employed informal caregivers experience reduced productivity and often struggle to cope with a full-time working week40. This is attributed to the fact that the demands of caregiving and work often compete for the same limited resources, such as time, financial, and psychological resources48. Consequently, most informal caregivers are likely to experience high levels of stress, which results in reduced mental health and wellbeing, precipitating limited productivity48. Some studies conducted in Europe revealed that employed informal caregivers reported high rates of absenteeism compared to non-caregiving employees49,50. Additionally, the caregivers were more likely to exit the open labour market prematurely compared to those who did not have caregiving responsibilities47. Therefore, it is important that strategies be implemented to support working informal caregivers, to prevent them from losing their incomes.

In the present study, a significantly higher subjective burden was established among informal caregivers who spent prolonged hours in daily caregiving (p=0.012). Those who spent 1–8 hours (69.2%) in daily caregiving reported mild-to-moderate subjective burden, but those spending 19–24 hours (53.1%) reported more severe subjective burden. It is not surprising that increased time spent on daily caregiving leads to an increase in the severity of subjective burden reported by the informal caregivers, considering that most (81.2%) stay in the same residence as the care recipient. Ayalew et al9 also identified that informal caregivers who spent long hours in daily caregiving expressed feelings of higher burden. With increased time spent on caregiving, the informal caregivers had less time for themselves, which predisposed them to increased burden51-53 and burnout, manifesting as physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion54. Informal caregivers who experience caregiver burnout are likely to express high levels of emotion, including critical comments and emotional hostility toward care recipients55. Experiencing criticisms and hostility acts as a stressor, which may be a causative factor leading to a person with SMDs experiencing relapse56.


The limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design and convenience sampling of participants at a single research site, which means these findings may not be able to be generalised to other populations. The omission of care recipient characteristics, such as their age, gender and duration of illness, in this study prevented a comprehensive understanding of the factors associated with caregiver burden. Future studies should therefore investigate the impact of care recipients’ characteristics on the burden of care reported by informal caregivers in rural areas. Incorporating a qualitative component could add value in the in-depth exploration of caregiver burden, and this is an area that can be explored in future research.


Caring for individuals with SMDs is associated with considerable levels of objective and subjective burdens for the informal caregivers. The impact of these burdens on the health and wellbeing of the informal caregivers and the spill-over effect of this to the quality of care received by care recipients have been clearly defined in previous studies. The findings in this study highlight the need to integrate the assessment of burdens among informal caregivers of people with SMDs in routine clinical practice. This can be done by ensuring that regular assessments are conducted to determine who is providing care and to determine the mental and physical status of the informal caregiver. It is important that gender stereotypes, such as labelling caregiving as a female-oriented activity, be addressed to ensure that both males and females are equally involved in the role of caregiving. Support strategies such as respite care may be implemented by involving other family members in caregiving activities to ensure the distribution of the caregiving demands. This can be achieved by strengthening community-based mental health services such as setting up day centres where people with SMDs can participate in activities to provide some respite to informal caregivers. To alleviate the financial burden of informal caregivers, it is recommended that governments implement a caregiver grant as an incentive, particularly in low-resource settings where employment opportunities are limited.


The authors acknowledge the informal caregivers of people with SMDs in the Bushbuckridge municipality for participating in the study, Dr Denise Franzsen and Dr Eniola Bamgboye for their assistance with the statistical analysis, and the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa for funding the study and for their exceptional training program, which has enhanced the first author’s academic writing skills.

Statement of funding

This research was supported by the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA). CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No. G-19-57145), Sida (Grant No:54100113), Uppsala Monitoring Center, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), and by the Wellcome Trust [reference no. 107768/Z/15/Z] and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, with support from the Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa (DELTAS Africa) programme. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Fellow.


1 World Health Organization. Helping people with severe mental disorders live longer and healthier lives. Policy brief. 2017. Available: web link (Accessed 10 April 2019).
2 Herman AA, Stein DJ, Seedat S, Heeringa SG, Moomal H, Williams DR, et al. The South African Stress and Health (SASH) study: 12-month and lifetime prevalence of common mental disorders. South African Medical Journal 2009; 99(5 Pt 2): 339-344.
3 World Health Organization. Global burden of mental disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response from health and social sectors at the country level. 2011. Available: web link (Accessed 13 September 2019).
4 Parliamentary Monitoring Group. Health care services for mentally ill: Mpumalanga & Northern Cape Departments of Health. 2017. Available: web link (Accessed 2 August 2022).
5 Negash A. Bipolar disorder in rural Ethiopia. PhD thesis. 2009. Umeå: Umeå University.
6 Souza ALR, Guimarães RA, De Araújo Vilela D, De Assis RM, De Almeida Cavalcante Oliveira LM, Souza MR, et al. Factors associated with the burden of family caregivers of patients with mental disorders: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 2017; 17(1): 353. DOI link, PMid:29070012
7 Schulz R, Patterson TL. Caregiving in geriatric psychiatry. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2004; 12(3): 234-237. DOI link
8 Lasebikan VO, Ayinde OO. Family burden in caregivers of schizophrenia patients: prevalence and socio-demographic correlates. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 2013; 35(1): 60-66. DOI link, PMid:23833344
9 Ayalew M, Workicho A, Tesfaye E, Hailesilasie H, Abera M. Burden among caregivers of people with mental illness at Jimma University Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Annals of General Psychiatry 2019; 18(1): 10. DOI link, PMid:31285750
10 Hidru TH, Osman MH, Lolokote S, Li X. Extent and pattern of burden of care and its associated factors among Eritrean families of persons living with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2016; 6(9): e012127. DOI link, PMid:27683516
11 Gloria O, Osafo J, Goldmann E, Parikh NS, Nonvignon J, Kretchy IMA. The experiences of providing caregiving for patients with schizophrenia in the Ghanaian context. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 2018; 32(6): 815-822. DOI link, PMid:30454622
12 Olawale KO, Mosaku KS, Fatoye FO, Mapayi BM, Oginni OA. Caregiver burden in families of patients with depression attending Obafemi Awolowo University teaching hospitals complex Ile-Ife Nigeria. General Hospital Psychiatry 2014; 36(6): 743-747. DOI link, PMid:25217492
13 Yerriah J, Tomita A, Paruk S. Surviving but not thriving: burden of care and quality of life for caregivers of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and comorbid substance use in South Africa. Early Intervention Psychiatry 2021; 16(2): 153-161. DOI link, PMid:33733599
14 Akbari M, Alavi M, Irajpour A, Maghsoudi J. Challenges of family caregivers of patients with mental disorders in Iran: a narrative review. Iran Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 2018; 23(5): 329-337. DOI link, PMid:30186336
15 Gharavi Y, Stringer B, Hoogendoorn A, Boogaarts J, Raaij B Van, Van Meijel B. Evaluation of an interaction-skills training for reducing the burden of family caregivers of patients with severe mental illness: a pre-posttest design. BMC Psychiatry 2018; 8(1): 1-14.
16 Chadda RK. Caring for the family caregivers of persons with mental illness. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2014; 56(3): 221-227. DOI link, PMid:25316932
17 Mokgothu MC, Du Plessis E, Koen MP. The strengths of families in supporting mentally-ill family members. Curationis 2015; 38(1): a1258. DOI link, PMid:26018195
18 Paruk S, Ramdhial M. Prevalence of caregiver burden, depressive and anxiety symptoms in caregivers of children with psychiatric disorders in Durban, South Africa. South African Journal of Psychiatry 2018; 24: a1314. DOI link
19 Aisbett DL, Boyd CP, Francis KJ, Newnham K, Newnham K. Understanding barriers to mental health service utilization for adolescents in rural Australia. Rural and Remote Health 2007; 7(1): 624. DOI link, PMid:17302509
20 Porche KL, Margolis SA. Rural mental health units – is there a role for a GP? Rural and Remote Health 2006; 6(4): 566. DOI link, PMid:17176209
21 Lippi G. Schizophrenia in a member of the family: burden, expressed emotion and addressing the needs of the whole family. South African Journal of Psychiatry 2016; 22(1): 7. DOI link, PMid:30263163
22 Vergunst R. From global-to-local: rural mental health in South Africa. Global Health Action 2018; 11(1): 1413916. DOI link, PMid:29320947
23 Statistics South Africa. Statistics South Africa general household survey. 2018. Available: web link (Accessed 12 February 2022).
24 Montgomery RJV, Gonyea JG, Hooyman NR. Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family Relations 1985; 34(1): 19. DOI link
25 Zamanzadeh V, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Majd H. Details of content validity and objectifying it in instrument development. Nursing Practice Today 2014; 1(3): 163-171.
26 Jakobsson U, Westergran A. Statistical methods for assessing agreement for ordinal data. Journal of Caring Sciences 2005; 19(4): 427-431. DOI link, PMid:16324069
27 Bartlett J, Kotrlik J, Higgins C. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 2001; 19(1): 1380-1382.
28 Ribé JM, Salamero M, Pérez-Testor C, Mercadal J, Aguilera C, Cleris M. Quality of life in family caregivers of schizophrenia patients in Spain: caregiver characteristics, caregiving burden, family functioning, and social and professional support. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 2018; 22(1): 25-33. DOI link, PMid:28799427
29 Yu Y, Li T, Li Y, Qiu D, Xi S, Xiao S, et al. A cross-sectional study on spouse and parent differences in caregiving experiences of people living with schizophrenia in rural China. BMC Psychiatry 2020; 20: 226. DOI link, PMid:32398050
30 Ukpong D. Burden and psychological distress among Nigerian family caregivers of schizophrenic patients: the role of positive and negative symptoms. [In Turkish]. Turkish Journal of Pyschiatry 2012; 23(1): 40-45.
31 Mhaule VN, Ntswana-Lebang MA. Experiences of caregivers of individuals suffering from schizophrenia in rural areas of the Mpumalanga province of South Africa. Africa Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 2009; 11(1): 118-136.
32 Mavundla TR, Toth F, Mphelane ML. Caregiver experience in mental illness: a perspective from a rural community in South Africa. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 2009; 18: 357-367. DOI link, PMid:19740145
33 Marimbe BD, Cowan F, Kajawu L, Muchirahondo F, Lund C. Perceived burden of care and reported coping strategies and needs for family caregivers of people with mental disorders in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Disability 2016; 5(1): 209. DOI link, PMid:28730046
34 Gania AM, Kaur H, Grover S, Khan AW, Suhaff A, Baidya K, et al. Caregiver burden in the families of the patients suffering from bipolar affective disorder. British Journal of Medical Practitioners 2019; 12(1): a006.
35 Mathis SM. Disobedient daughters? Changing women's roles in rural households in KwaZulu-Natal. Journal of Southern African Studies 2011; 37(4): 831-848. DOI link
36 Awad AG, Voruganti LNP. The burden of schizophrenia on caregivers: a review. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(2): 149-162. DOI link, PMid:18198934
37 Asher L, Fekadu A, Hanlon C, Mideksa G, Eaton J, Patel V, et al. Development of a community-based rehabilitation intervention for people with schizophrenia in Ethiopia. PLoS One 2015; 10(11): e0143572. DOI link, PMid:26618915
38 Flyckt L, Fatouros-Bergman H, Koernig T. Determinants of subjective and objective burden of informal caregiving of patients with psychotic disorders. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2015; 61(7): 684-692. DOI link, PMid:25770207
39 Adeosun II. Correlates of caregiver burden among family members of patients with schizophrenia in Lagos, Nigeria. Schizophrenia Research and Treatment 2013; 2013: 1-7. DOI link
40 Lund C, Waruguru M, Kingori J, Kippen-Wood S, Breuer E, Mannarathd S, et al. Outcomes of the mental health and development model in rural Kenya: a 2-year prospective cohort intervention study. International Health 2013; 5(1): 43-50. DOI link, PMid:24029845
41 Flyckt L, Löthman A, Jörgensen L, Rylander A, Koernig T. Burden of informal care giving to patients with psychoses: a descriptive and methodological study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2013; 59(2): 137-146. DOI link, PMid:22100570
42 Shamsaei F, Cheraghi F, Bashirian S. Burden on family caregivers caring for patients with schizophrenia. Iran Journal of Psychiatry 2015; 10(4): 239.
43 Yazıcı E, Karabulut Ü, Yıldız M, Baskan Tekeş S, İnan E, Çakır U, et al. Burden on caregivers of patients with schizophrenia and related factors. Nöro Psikiyatr Arşivi 2016; 53(2): 96. DOI link, PMid:28360779
44 Van Os J, Kapur S. Schizophrenia. Lancet 2009; 374(9690): 635-645. DOI link, PMid:19700006
45 Asmal L, Mall S, Emsley R, Chiliza B, Swartz L. Towards a treatment model for family therapy for schizophrenia in an urban African setting: results from a qualitative study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2014; 60(4): 315-320. DOI link, PMid:23757325
46 Arun R, Inbalamal S, Tharyan A, Premkumar P. Spousal caregiver burden and its relation with disability in schizophrenia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 2018; 41(2): 138-143. DOI link, PMid:29403125
47 Berk L, Jorm AF, Kelly CM, Dodd S, Berk M. Development of guidelines for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: a Delphi expert consensus study. International Journal of Psychiatry and Neurology 2011; 13(5-6): 556-570. DOI link, PMid:22017224
48 Rural Mental Health Campaign. The rural mental health campaign report. 2015. Available: web link (Accessed 14 April 2019).
49 Mikkola TM, Mänty M, Kautiainen H, Von Bonsdorff MB, Haanpää M, Koponen H, et al. Work incapacity among family caregivers: a record linkage study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2022; 76: 580-585. DOI link, PMid:35135858
50 Boumans NPG, Dorant E. Double-duty caregivers: healthcare professionals juggling employment and informal caregiving. A survey on personal health and work experiences. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2014; 70(7): 1604-1615. DOI link, PMid:24289650
51 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): 192-198. DOI link, PMid:17688477
52 Chiou CJ, Chang HY, Chen IP, Wang HH. Social support and caregiving circumstances as predictors of caregiver burden in Taiwan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2009; 48(3): 419-424. DOI link, PMid:18602706
53 Fan CC, Chen YY. Factors associated with care burden and quality of life among caregivers of the mentally ill in Chinese society. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2011; 57(2): 195-206. DOI link, PMid:19833682
54 Cipolletta S, Lavy S, Gérain P, Zech E. Informal caregiver burnout? Development of a theoretical framework to understand the impact of caregiving. Frontiers in Psychology 2019; 10: 1748. DOI link, PMid:31428015
55 Zabihi Poursaadati M, Maarefvand M, Bolhari J, Hosseinzadeh S, Songhori N, Derakhshan L, et al. Caregivers' experiences and perspectives of factors associated with relapse in Iranian people living with schizophrenia: a qualitative study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2021; 69(1). DOI link, PMid:34971526
56 Berk L, Jorm A, Kelly C, Berk M, Dodd S. A guide for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder. 2011. Available: web link (Accessed 2 October 2019).

You might also be interested in:

2018 - University Departments of Rural Health: Is a national network of multidisciplinary academic departments in Australia making a difference?

2016 - An Aboriginal perspective on 'Closing the Gap' from the rural front line

2008 - The illusion of minority status