Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors of Caregiving Competence among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients

Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors of Caregiving Competence among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors of Caregiving Competence among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients Runyue Wang, Jiyuan Sun, Xue Xia, Yujie Ling, Mengqian Bao, Yawen Xie, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective To identify distinct caregiving competence profiles among family caregivers of burn patients via latent profile analysis (LPA) and explore influencing factors for targeted interventions. Methods A cross-sectional study recruited 336 caregivers from a Nanjing tertiary hospital (2020–2025) using convenience sampling. Data were collected with FCTI, GSES, and MCMQ. LPA categorized caregivers, and multinomial logistic regression analyzed predictors. Results Four profiles emerged: Globally Deficient (17.9%), Bimodal Strength (18.5%), Balanced Moderate (29.5%), and Comprehensively Competent (34.2%). Self-efficacy (OR = 3.071), confrontational coping (OR = 8.465), urban residence (OR = 3.616), higher education (OR = 4.547), and higher household income (OR = 1.969) positively predicted competence; larger burn surface area (OR = 0.900) and head-face-neck burns (OR = 0.231) had negative effects (all P < 0.05). Conclusions Caregiving competence is shaped by caregiver characteristics, patient burn features, and psychological factors. Tailored interventions (telehealth for rural caregivers, visual training for low-education groups, specialized counseling for head-face-neck burn caregivers) are recommended to improve outcomes. burns family caregivers caregiving competence latent profile analysis transitional care influencing factors Figures Figure 1 1. INTRODUCTION Burn injuries represent a significant global health burden, characterized by high morbidity and substantial long-term disability. These traumatic injuries not only impose severe physical and psychological consequences on patients but also present considerable caregiving challenges for their family members [1]. The annual incidence of burns caused by flames, chemicals, electrical sources, and other etiological factors remains substantial worldwide. Such injuries result in extensive damage to cutaneous tissues, triggering a cascade of complications including abnormal pain perception, elevated infection risk, and functional impairment of affected extremities, accompanied by pronounced psychological stress responses such as anxiety and depression [2]. Given the current inequitable distribution of healthcare resources and the incomplete development of rehabilitation service systems, the responsibility for post-discharge care of burn patients predominantly falls upon family caregivers. Despite continuous advances in burn treatment technologies, patient recovery trajectories remain highly dependent on sustained, systematic caregiving support, positioning family caregivers as central figures in the rehabilitation process [3]. Family caregivers serve as critical support providers for burn patient rehabilitation, with their caregiving competence directly influencing patient recovery quality and prognosis [4]. From a practical caregiving perspective, caregivers must undertake fundamental tasks including daily living assistance, wound care, and rehabilitation exercise facilitation, while simultaneously providing emotional support to alleviate patients' negative emotions and serving as communication bridges between patients and healthcare providers. These multifaceted demands impose substantial requirements on caregivers' comprehensive capabilities [5]. The adequacy of caregiving knowledge and skills possessed by caregivers significantly impacts patient recovery trajectories [6], confirming that caregiver heterogeneity exerts critical influences on patient outcomes. Therefore, developing a thorough understanding of burn caregiver competence composition and population characteristics constitutes an essential prerequisite for optimizing care quality and improving patient prognosis. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) is a person-centered analytical approach capable of identifying distinct characteristic subgroups within populations and delineating inter-group differences, with statistical indicators providing measures of classification accuracy and validity [7]. LPA overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches that categorize populations based on scale cutoff values, enabling precise characterization of within-population heterogeneity. Through LPA, researchers can identify distinct profiles, clarify the influencing factors for each profile, and establish robust foundations for targeted interventions [8]. This study aimed to apply LPA methodology to identify caregiving competence types among family caregivers of burn patients based on five-dimensional competence indicators, and to explore the predictive effects of demographic characteristics, burn characteristics, and psychological factors on different caregiving competence profiles, thereby providing scientific evidence for developing targeted caregiver support programs and enhancing burn patient family care quality. 2. METHODS 2.1 Study Design and Participants This cross-sectional study employed convenience sampling to recruit family caregivers of burn patients from the burn department of a tertiary hospital in Nanjing, China, between January 2020 and October 2025. Inclusion criteria were: (1) age ≥18 years; (2) primary caregiver for a burn patient with cumulative caregiving duration ≥1 month; (3) normal visual and auditory function with basic reading, comprehension, and language abilities; (4) clear consciousness without psychiatric history, provision of informed consent, and voluntary participation. Exclusion criteria were: (1) paid professional caregivers; (2) individuals simultaneously caring for other family members with serious illnesses. Sample size was calculated based on the requirement that sample size should be at least 10 times the number of independent variables. With 16 independent variables (caregiver age, caregiving duration, burn surface area, caregiver self-efficacy, gender, education level, residence, monthly household income, patient BMI, burn locations [head-face-neck, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, perineum], comorbidities, and medical coping styles), the minimum required sample was 160 participants. Accounting for a 10% invalid questionnaire rate, 167 participants were planned for recruitment. A total of 351 questionnaires were distributed, with 336 valid questionnaires retrieved, yielding an effective response rate of 95.73%. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Medical University (Approval No.: [to be added]), and all participants provided written informed consent. 2.2 Instruments General Information Questionnaire: A researcher-designed questionnaire collected caregiver demographics (gender, age, education level, residence, marital status, monthly household income), caregiving role information (relationship to patient, caregiving duration), and patient clinical characteristics (burn surface area, burn location, burn severity, comorbidities). Family Caregiver Task Inventory (FCTI): Originally developed by Clark and Rakowski in 1983 [9], with the Chinese version adapted by Li in Hong Kong (Cronbach's α=0.92) [10]. The scale comprises five dimensions: adapting to the caregiver role (5 items), providing assistance and responding to changes (5 items), managing personal emotional needs (5 items), assessing family and social resources (5 items), and adjusting life to meet caregiving needs (5 items), totaling 25 items. A 3-point Likert scale (0=no ability, 1=partial ability, 2=full ability) is employed, with dimension scores ranging from 0-10 and total scores from 0-50, where higher scores indicate greater caregiving competence. In this study, Cronbach's α coefficients for the five dimensions were 0.834, 0.864, 0.847, 0.847, and 0.878 respectively, with an overall scale Cronbach's α of 0.921. General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES): Developed by Schwarzer [11] and adapted into Chinese by Wang et al. [12]. This scale quantitatively assesses individuals' confidence in their ability to successfully complete tasks and overcome obstacles when facing various challenges. The Chinese version has been extensively applied in research involving healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers. The Chinese GSES demonstrates a Cronbach's α of 0.87 [12]; in this study, Cronbach's α was 0.904. Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire (MCMQ): Originally developed by Feifel in 1987 and adapted into Chinese by Shen et al. [13], comprising 20 items measuring coping strategies under disease-related stress across three dimensions: confrontation, avoidance, and acceptance-resignation. A 4-point Likert scale is used, with higher dimension scores indicating greater preference for that coping style. The Chinese MCMQ dimensions demonstrate Cronbach's α coefficients of 0.69, 0.60, and 0.76 respectively; in this study, Cronbach's α values were 0.892, 0.865, and 0.871. 2.3 Data Collection Research assistants received standardized training covering study objectives, data collection procedures, questionnaire completion guidelines, and problem-solving protocols. Following institutional and departmental approval, research assistants approached eligible caregivers in the burn department outpatient clinic and inpatient ward to explain the study purpose, content, and procedures. Questionnaires were administered after obtaining informed consent, with face-to-face guidance provided to ensure response quality. Completed questionnaires were immediately reviewed for missing or erroneous responses, with corrections made on-site. Questionnaire data were independently entered into SPSS databases by two researchers, with consistency verification and resolution of discrepancies through reference to original questionnaires. 2.4 Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3. Continuous variables following normal distribution were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), while non-normally distributed variables were presented as median with interquartile range [M(P25, P75)]. Categorical variables were described using frequencies and percentages. Latent profile analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.3, with model fit evaluated using the following indices: Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC), with lower values indicating better fit; Entropy ≥0.8 suggesting acceptable classification accuracy, with values closer to 1 indicating higher accuracy; Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMRT) and Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), with P<0.05 indicating superior fit of the k-class model compared to the k-1 class model [14]. Univariate analyses employed chi-square tests for categorical variables, one-way ANOVA for normally distributed continuous variables, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests for non-normally distributed continuous variables. Statistically significant variables from univariate analyses were entered into multinomial logistic regression to explore influencing factors for different caregiving competence profiles. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05. 3. Results 3.1 General Characteristics of Research Subjects A total of 351 questionnaires were distributed, with 15 invalid questionnaires excluded, resulting in 336 valid questionnaires. The average age was 45.53±15.77, caregiving duration was 12.29±6.5 months, and monthly family income per capita was distributed as follows: 125 cases in the 0-6000 yuan range, 101 cases in the 6001-9000 yuan range, 69 cases in the 9001-12000 yuan range, and 41 cases in the >12000 yuan range. 3.2 Results of Latent Profile Analysis of Family Caregivers' Caregiving Abilities for Burn Patients 3.2.1 Analysis of Model Fit Indices This study used 5 dimensions of caregiving abilities of burn patients' family caregivers as manifest variables to construct 5 latent profile models. Model fit information is shown in Table 1. Analysis results showed that the LMR test P value of Model 5 was >0.05, which did not meet the fitting criteria; although Model 4's Entropy was the lowest among the four models, it was still greater than 0.8, indicating good classification accuracy. After comprehensive consideration, the four-classification model could more clearly present the caregiving ability characteristics of different types of burn patients' family caregivers, therefore Model 4 was determined as the optimal latent profile model. Based on the scores of each category in Model 4 across the 5 dimensions of caregiving abilities (see Figure 1), each category was named as follows: C1, with scores significantly lower than the overall mean in all dimensions, was named "Comprehensively Weak Group"; C2, with scores approximating the overall mean in all dimensions, was named "Balanced Average Group"; C3, with scores showing a wave-like distribution, where dimensions of adapting to caregiver role and coping and providing assistance scored higher than the overall mean while other dimensions scored significantly lower than the overall mean, was named "Dual-Peak Advantage Group"; C4, with scores higher than the overall mean in all dimensions, was named "Comprehensively High-Ability Group". Table 1. Fit Information of Latent Profile Models for Caregiving Abilities of Burn Patients' Family Caregivers Model AIC BIC Adj.BIC Entropy LMRT (p) BLRT (p) Class Probabilities 1 2574.634 2612.806 2581.084 2 2234.722 2295.795 2245.042 0.857 <0.001 <0.001 0.47321/0.52679 3 2115.222 2199.198 2129.412 0.860 <0.001 <0.001 0.17857/0.31548/0.50595 4 2045.691 2152.570 2063.750 0.825 0.004 <0.001 0.17857/0.18452/0.29464/0.34226 5 2024.006 2153.788 2045.936 0.859 0.254 <0.001 0.02381/0.17857/0.18155/0.29464/0.32143 Note: AIC=Akaike Information Criterion; BIC=Bayesian Information Criterion; Abic=Sample-Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; LMRT=Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test; BLRT=Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test. 3.2.2 Latent Category Feature Analysis Based on the standardized score distribution of each category across five dimensions of family caregiver care capacity in the four-class model, each category was named: Category 1 (17.9%): Scores in all dimensions were significantly below the overall mean (standardized scores 0.5), while scores in managing personal emotional needs, assessing family and social resources, and adjusting life to meet care needs were below the mean (standardized scores <-0.3), showing a wave-like distribution, named "Dual-Peak Advantage Group"; Category 3 (29.5%): Scores in all dimensions were close to the overall mean (standardized scores between -0.2 and 0.2), named "Balanced Moderate Group"; Category 4 (34.2%): Scores in all dimensions were significantly above the overall mean (standardized scores >0.6), named "Comprehensive High Capacity Group". Analysis of variance results showed that there were significant differences among the four categories across all five dimensions (all p<0.001). 3.3 Univariate Analysis of Latent Categories of Burn Patient Family Caregiver Care Capacity Univariate analysis of burn patient family caregiver care capacity latent categories revealed that caregivers in different care capacity categories showed statistically significant differences in age, self-role perception, education level, place of residence, monthly household income per capita, duration of care, self-efficacy level, and medical coping styles (including confrontational, avoidant, and submissive coping styles) (all P<0.05). Detailed results are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Chi-square Univariate Analysis of Burn Patient Family Caregiver Care Capacity Latent Categories (N=336) Items Overall Weak Group (n=62) Bimodal Advantage Group (n=115) Balanced Medium Group (n=99) Comprehensive High-Energy Group (n=60) χ² / F P Family caregiver's age (years, \(\bar{x}±s\)) 46.58±16.41 47.46±15.05 45.09±15.83 41.48±15.94 2.028 0.11 Care duration (months, \(\bar{x}±s\)) 11.79±6.28 11.12±6.60 12.69±6.13 14.42±6.69 3.716 0.012* Patient's burn area (%, \(\bar{x}±s\)) 27.27±11.66 24.10±9.01 24.28±9.27 21.50±5.88 4.044 0.008** Family caregiver's self-efficacy (score, \(\bar{x}±s\)) 2.42±0.74 2.79±0.60 3.01±0.66 3.10±0.72 13.825 <0.001** Family caregiver's gender 4.33 0.228 - Male 29(46.77) 41(35.65) 46(46.46) 21(35.00) - Female 33(53.23) 74(64.35) 53(53.54) 39(65.00) Family caregiver's educational level [n(%)] 27.189 0.000** - Technical secondary school and below 46(74.19) 77(66.96) 61(61.62) 24(40.00) - College and undergraduate 16(25.81) 34(29.57) 29(29.29) 25(41.67) - Master's degree and above 0(0.00) 4(3.48) 9(9.09) 11(18.33) Residence [n(%)] 8.642 0.034* - Rural 53(85.48) 80(69.57) 67(67.68) 38(63.33) - Urban 9(14.52) 35(30.43) 32(32.32) 22(36.67) Family per capita monthly income (yuan) [n(%)] 21.551 0.010* - 0~6000 25(40.32) 49(42.61) 38(38.38) 13(21.67) - 6001~9000 23(37.10) 36(31.30) 25(25.25) 17(28.33) - 9001~12000 12(19.35) 17(14.78) 19(19.19) 21(35.00) - >12000 2(3.23) 13(11.30) 17(17.17) 9(15.00) Whether patient's BMI ≤24 Kg/m² 5.963 0.113 - Yes 34(54.84) 71(61.74) 71(71.72) 42(70.00) - No 28(45.16) 44(38.26) 28(28.28) 18(30.00) Whether head, face and neck are burned [n(%)] 9.545 0.023* - Yes 15(24.19) 14(12.17) 9(9.09) 5(8.33) - No 47(75.81) 101(87.83) 90(90.91) 55(91.67) Whether upper limbs are burned [n(%)] 4.902 0.179 - Yes 31(50.00) 38(33.04) 40(40.40) 24(40.00) - No 31(50.00) 77(66.96) 59(59.60) 36(60.00) Whether trunk is burned [n(%)] 0.529 0.913 - Yes 30(48.39) 57(49.57) 45(45.45) 27(45.00) - No 32(51.61) 58(50.43) 54(54.55) 33(55.00) Whether lower limbs are burned [n(%)] 5.663 0.129 - Yes 24(38.71) 57(49.57) 57(57.58) 28(46.67) - No 38(61.29) 58(50.43) 42(42.42) 32(53.33) Whether perineum is burned [n(%)] 7.873 0.049* - Yes 5(8.06) 17(14.78) 5(5.05) 3(5.00) - No 57(91.94) 98(85.22) 94(94.95) 57(95.00) Whether complicated with chronic diseases [n(%)] 7.336 0.062 - Yes 32(51.61) 46(40.00) 30(30.30) 24(40.00) - No 30(48.39) 69(60.00) 69(69.70) 36(60.00) Family caregiver's medical coping style [n(%)] 64.148 0.000** - Confrontation 17(27.42) 41(35.65) 60(60.61) 43(71.67) - Avoidance 14(22.58) 53(46.09) 26(26.26) 10(16.67) - Yielding 31(50.00) 21(18.26) 13(13.13) 7(11.67) * P<0.05, ** p<0.01 Note: OR=Odds Ratio; 95%CI=95% Confidence Interval; using the comprehensive weak group as the reference group; Nagelkerke R²=0.398; Hosmer-Lemeshow test: Χ²=11.573, P=0.172. 2.4 Multivariate Analysis of Different Potential Categories of Caregiving Ability Among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients Place of residence, caregiver self-efficacy, medical coping style (confrontation), monthly family income, burn injury to the head, face, and neck of the care recipient, burn area, are influencing factors of potential profiles of caregiving ability among family caregivers of burn patients (all P<0.05). See Table 3. Table 3. Multinomial logistic regression analysis of different latent categories of caregiving ability among family caregivers of burn patients Predictor Variables Bimodal Advantage Group Balanced Moderate Group Comprehensive High-Energy Group B OR 95% CI B OR 95% CI B OR 95% CI Care Duration (months) -0.016 0.984 0.934-1.037 0.016 1.016 0.961-1.075 0.053 1.054 0.986-1.128 Burn Area (%) -0.043* 0.958 0.926-0.991 -0.048** 0.953 0.919-0.988 -0.106*** 0.900 0.851-0.951 Caregiver's Education 0.570 1.767 0.891-3.504 0.802* 2.230 1.104-4.504 1.515*** 4.547 2.135-9.683 Residence (Urban) 0.963* 2.619 1.073-6.392 1.096* 2.992 1.177-7.607 1.285* 3.616 1.268-10.315 Monthly Household Income 0.211 1.234 0.851-1.790 0.437* 1.548 1.050-2.283 0.678** 1.969 1.274-3.045 Head/Neck Burn (Yes) -0.881 0.414 0.165-1.042 -1.263* 0.283 0.100-0.802 -1.465* 0.231 0.063-0.854 Perineal Burn (Yes) 0.392 1.480 0.464-4.718 -0.938 0.391 0.095-1.610 -0.953 0.386 0.073-2.040 Self-Efficacy 0.646** 1.909 1.170-3.113 1.096*** 2.992 1.749-5.118 1.122*** 3.071 1.609-5.861 Medical Coping Style - Confrontation 1.194** 3.301 1.394-7.817 1.943*** 6.978 2.733-17.815 2.136*** 8.465 2.703-26.510 Medical Coping Style - Avoidance 1.589*** 4.897 2.061-11.636 1.334** 3.795 1.400-10.285 1.049 2.853 0.799-10.187 Constant Term -2.942* - - -5.713*** - - -7.494*** - - Note: OR=odds ratio; 95%CI=95% confidence interval; with the overall weak group as the reference group; Nagelkerke R²=0.398; Hosmer-Lemeshow test: Χ²=11.573, P=0.172. 4. DISCUSSION This study represents the first application of latent profile analysis—a person-centered analytical approach—in the domestic burn caregiver research domain, successfully identifying four caregiver types with distinct competence structural characteristics. This finding transcends the limitations of traditional variable-centered research that treats caregivers as a homogeneous population, providing a novel theoretical framework and practical pathway for understanding caregiver competence complexity and implementing precision interventions. 4.1 Effects of Burn Surface Area Burn surface area demonstrated significant negative effects across all three comparison groups (P<0.05), with the inhibitory effect strengthening progressively with increasing competence levels. This indicates that burn surface area exerts a gradient inhibitory effect on caregiving competence. This phenomenon occurs because larger burn areas are associated with greater wound infection risk, more severe functional impairment, and intensified psychological stress responses [15]. Patients with extensive burns require multiple daily wound cleaning and dressing changes, and are prone to depressive symptoms due to activity limitations or appearance changes [16]. When caregivers lack corresponding competencies, advancement to higher-level caregiving competence profiles becomes constrained. Therefore, psychological counseling delivered via telehealth and in-person home nursing guidance should be provided for patients with larger burn areas to improve family caregiver competence [17]. Duchin et al. [18] investigated burn patients' pain experiences and perceptions, finding that inpatients reported higher pain levels than outpatients, with patients particularly desiring more information about sleep, pain medications, alternative treatments, withdrawal, and addiction risks. These findings align with our conclusion regarding the inhibitory effect of burn surface area on caregiving competence. 4.2 Effects of Residence Location Multinomial logistic regression results indicated that residence location was an independent influencing factor for family caregiver caregiving competence profiles (P<0.05). Rural caregivers demonstrated significantly higher probability of membership in the Globally Deficient Group compared to urban caregivers. This finding reflects the reality of unequal urban-rural healthcare resource distribution in China. Urban areas benefit from concentrated tertiary hospitals and comprehensive community health services, enabling caregivers to access burn care knowledge through multiple channels including hospital rehabilitation guidance clinics, community care training courses, and online professional consultations [19]. Conversely, rural areas face relative scarcity of healthcare resources with limited coverage of professional burn care training, forcing caregivers to largely rely on self-exploration for care delivery, resulting in generally weaker competencies in adapting to caregiver roles and assessing social resources [20]. Won et al. [21] found that racial and ethnic minority burn patients experienced worse itching and fatigue symptoms, indicating that healthcare inequalities affect care quality—a finding that echoes our discovery regarding residence effects on caregiving competence. 4.3 Effects of Caregiver Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy demonstrated significant positive effects across all three comparison groups (P<0.01), with the strongest effect observed in the Bimodal Strength Group. Self-efficacy serves as the "psychological driving force" for caregivers to cope with difficulties; individuals with high self-efficacy proactively learn new skills and consult healthcare providers, while those with low self-efficacy tend to retreat following errors, impeding competence development [22]. This indicates that self-efficacy represents the core psychological driver for caregivers to break through caregiving dilemmas and enhance their competencies. Clinical observations reveal that even when facing patients with similar burn severity, caregivers with high self-efficacy demonstrate stronger learning initiative and problem-solving abilities. Wickens et al. [23] designed a pediatric burn patient mental health promotion program emphasizing the importance of post-trauma psychological support, particularly a six-week intervention plan for children aged 6-17 and their caregivers covering information gathering, reaction management, coping skill development, and problem-solving. This structured intervention aligns conceptually with the "self-efficacy ladder enhancement program" we propose. 4.4 Effects of Head-Face-Neck Burns Head-face-neck burns demonstrated significant negative effects only in the Bimodal Strength and Comprehensively Competent Groups (P<0.05). Patients with head-face-neck burns are susceptible to disfigurement and may experience swallowing or breathing difficulties, which not only increase nursing complexity but readily trigger serious psychological problems in caregivers [32]. Caregivers must simultaneously address complex nursing requirements and provide intensive emotional support; even high-competence caregivers experience constrained capability expression [33]. Head-face-neck burns may affect patient eating, speech, and even respiratory function, requiring caregivers to master specialized skills such as oral care and airway management. Especially when patients develop severe scar contractures, caregivers need to assist with complex functional exercises, demanding exceptionally high technical proficiency. Mehrabi et al. [35] systematically reviewed self-esteem and related factors among burn patients, finding significant negative correlations between facial burns, burn severity, burn percentage and self-esteem, while social support and family support showed significant positive correlations with self-esteem—findings that echo our research and support our recommendation for specialized psychological counseling for caregivers of head-face-neck burn patients. 4.5 Methodological Contributions Traditional burn care research has been largely confined to single-dimension total score comparisons or simple high-low groupings, struggling to capture structural differences in caregiver competencies. This study applied latent profile analysis to reveal natural classifications of caregiving competence among domestic burn caregiver populations, not only achieving methodological transformation from variable-centered to person-centered approaches but also providing new perspectives for precise identification of caregiver competence characteristics. Using the Bimodal Strength Group as an example, these caregivers demonstrate outstanding performance in adapting to caregiver roles and providing assistance, yet exhibit obvious weaknesses in emotion management and resource assessment—an uneven development pattern easily masked in traditional total score evaluations. This method directly connects caregiver types with influencing factors, making intervention targets more explicit. 4.6 Implications for Transitional Care In transitional care practice, this study's profile classification results hold significant clinical translation value. Transitional care emphasizes seamless care continuity from hospital to home and community throughout the patient journey. Given burn patients' extended recovery cycles and complex, evolving care needs, establishing systematic transitional care support networks is particularly essential. Based on the differentiated characteristics of four caregiver types, transitional care protocols can achieve precision design: for Globally Deficient Group caregivers, intensive pre-discharge training should be initiated with regular community nursing specialist follow-up mechanisms established; for Bimodal Strength Group caregivers, transitional care emphasis should focus on emotional support and social resource linkage, achievable through online psychological counseling hotlines and peer support groups; for Balanced Moderate and Comprehensively Competent Group caregivers, focus can shift to competency consolidation and advanced training, encouraging participation in caregiver mutual assistance network development. This stratified, classified transitional care model facilitates optimal healthcare resource allocation while enhancing overall family care quality and efficiency. 4.7 Limitations and Future Directions While this study revealed latent categories and influencing mechanisms of burn patient family caregiver caregiving competence, certain limitations exist. The cross-sectional design captured only static caregiver competence characteristics, unable to reveal dynamic developmental trajectories or causal relationships. Convenience sampling may limit sample representativeness, particularly potentially excluding caregivers bearing the heaviest burdens who lack time for research participation. Self-report scales as primary measurement tools cannot completely avoid social desirability bias, with caregivers potentially responding based on ideal rather than actual situations. This study did not deeply explore family functioning, cultural beliefs, and other socioecological factors that may significantly influence caregiver competence development. Future research will focus on precision and sustainability of transitional care, collaborating with experts from burn surgery, rehabilitation medicine, psychology, and public health to construct integrated "hospital-community-home" transitional care systems and develop stratified, classified transitional care intervention protocols. 5. Conclusion Family caregivers of burn patients can be classified into four distinct latent profiles of caregiving competence: the Globally Deficient Group, the Bimodal Strength Group, the Balanced Moderate Group, and the Comprehensively Competent Group. Different caregiver profiles demonstrate significant variations in residence, self-efficacy, medical coping styles, education level, monthly household income, and patient burn surface area and head-face-neck burn status. Burn specialty healthcare providers and community care support personnel should reference the population characteristics of different caregiver profiles—such as the Globally Deficient Group predominantly comprising rural, lower-educated, lower self-efficacy individuals, and the Bimodal Strength Group excelling in adapting to caregiver roles and responsive assistance yet demonstrating weakness in emotion management and resource assessment—to provide individualized burn patient family care support. Recommendations include telehealth guidance for rural caregivers, visual-based training design for lower-educated caregivers, and specialized psychological counseling for head-face-neck burn patient caregivers to enhance family caregiver competence and patient rehabilitation quality. This study provides critical evidence for implementing precision, stratified caregiver support. Allocating resources according to profile-specific needs—such as strengthening foundations for the Globally Deficient Group and addressing psychological shortcomings for the Bimodal Strength Group—represents the essential pathway for achieving care quality improvement and resource optimization. Integrating profile analysis concepts into transitional care constitutes an important direction for advancing burn rehabilitation nursing practice toward precision care. 6. Relevance to clinical practice The findings of this study offer direct and actionable implications for optimizing clinical care pathways for burn patients and their family caregivers. Firstly, burn care teams can integrate latent profile classification into routine clinical assessments—conducting brief evaluations of caregivers’ competence dimensions, demographic characteristics, and psychological status upon patient admission or prior to discharge. This enables targeted stratification of caregivers into the four identified profiles, facilitating the design of personalized pre-discharge training and follow-up plans. For example, rural caregivers in the Globally Deficient Group can be prioritized for telehealth-based skill training and regular community nurse home visits, while caregivers of patients with head-face-neck burns can be proactively connected to specialized psychological counseling services during the acute care phase. Secondly, the study supports the development of multidisciplinary transitional care models: collaborating with rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and community health workers to address profile-specific gaps—such as enhancing emotion management skills for the Bimodal Strength Group or strengthening resource assessment capabilities for lower-income caregivers. Thirdly, clinical institutions can utilize the identified influencing factors (e.g., self-efficacy and confrontational coping) to develop structured intervention modules, such as self-efficacy enhancement workshops and coping skill training, which can be integrated into routine caregiver support programs. By translating these person-centered insights into clinical practice, healthcare providers can improve the continuity and effectiveness of family-centered care, reduce caregiver burden, and ultimately enhance patient rehabilitation outcomes while optimizing the allocation of limited healthcare resources. Declarations Data availability All data involved in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank all the family caregivers of burn patients who participated in this study for their valuable time and contributions. Funding This study received no specific financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contributions The authors contributed as follows: Runyue Wang was responsible for conceptualization, study design, data collection, and manuscript drafting; Jiyuan Sun handled data curation, statistical and formal analysis, and result validation; Xue Xia conducted field investigation, provided resources, and managed the project; Yujie Lin assisted with data collection and literature search and review; Mengqian Bao constructed the data analysis framework and created data visualizations; Yawen Xie verified sample information and organized references; Ying Hong assisted with investigation and manuscript revision; and Juan Li supervised the study, critically reviewed the manuscript, and was responsible for manuscript revision and final approval. Corresponding authors Correspondence to Juan Li, Email: [email protected] Ethics Declarations This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Approval No. 2025-SRFA-022). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. References Li P, Zhang Q, Li D. Epidemiology and prognosis of burn injuries in China: a meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res. 2025;30(1):581. Żwierełło W, Piorun K, Skórka-Majewicz M, et al. Burns: Classification, Pathophysiology, and Treatment: A Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(4):3749. Hsu KC. Impact of long-term outcomes on the caregivers of burn survivors. Burns. 2023;49(2):317–28. Levoy K, Rivera E, McHugh M, et al. Caregiver Engagement Enhances Outcomes Among Randomized Control Trials of Transitional Care Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Med Care. 2022;60(7):519–29. Rencken CA, Harrison AD, Aluisio AR, et al. A Qualitative Analysis of Burn Injury Patient and Caregiver Experiences in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa: Enduring the Transition to a Post-Burn Life. Eur Burn J. 2021;2(3):75–87. Farzan R, Parvizi A, Takasi P, et al. Caregivers' knowledge with burned children and related factors towards burn first aid: A systematic review. Int Wound J. 2023;20(7):2887–97. Leung CLK, Li KK, Wei VWI, et al. Profiling vaccine believers and skeptics in nurses: a latent profile analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;126:104142. Nylund-Gibson K, Choi AY. Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2018;4(4):440–61. Clark NM, Rakowski W. Family caregivers of older adults: improving helping skills. Gerontologist. 1983;23(6):637–42. Li LT. Measuring the caregiving ability of family caregivers. Hong Kong Nurs J. 1998;34(3):21–8. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-efficacy Scale. In: Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal control beliefs. 1995:35–7. Wang CK, Hu ZF, Liu Y. Reliability and Validity of General Self-Efficacy Scale. Appl Psychol. 2001;(1):37–40. Shen XH, Jiang QJ. Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire Chinese version: test report of 701 cases. Chin Mental Health J. 2000;14(1):22–4. Wang MC, Deng QW, Bi XY, et al. The performance of Entropy in latent profile analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2017;49(11):1473–82. Strassle PD, Williams FN, Weber DJ, et al. Risk Factors for Healthcare-Associated Infections in Adult Burn Patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(12):1441–8. Wang H, Yang J, Xia M, et al. Family members' knowledge, attitudes, practices, and caregiver burden in managing the health of patients with severe burn injuries. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1450356. Sadeghi A, Barkhordar A, Tapak L, et al. Impact of Family Caregiver Training on Care of Burn Patients. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):270–7. Duchin ER, Moore M, Carrougher GJ, et al. Burn patients' pain experiences and perceptions. Burns. 2021;47(7):1627–34. Zhang L, Zeng Y, Wang L, et al. Urban-Rural Differences in Long-Term Care Service Status and Needs Among Home-Based Elderly People in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1701. Won P, Stoycos SA, Ding L, et al. Worse Itch and Fatigue in Racial and Ethnic Minorities: A Burn Model System Study. J Burn Care Res. 2023;44(6):1445–51. Meyer K, Glassner A, Norman R, et al. Caregiver self-efficacy improves following complex care training: Results from the Learning Skills Together pilot study. Geriatr Nurs. 2022;45:147–52. Wickens N, McGivern L, De Gouveia Belinelo P, et al. A wellbeing program to promote mental health in paediatric burn patients: Study protocol. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(2):e0294237. Rimmer RB, Bay RC, Alam NB, et al. Measuring the burden of pediatric burn injury for parents and caregivers: informed burn center staff can help to lighten the load. J Burn Care Res. 2015;36(3):421–7. Wang BB, Patel KF, Wolfe AE, et al. Adolescents with and without head and neck burns: comparison of long-term outcomes in the burn model system national database. Burns. 2022;48(1):40–50. Longacre ML, Ridge JA, Burtness BA, et al. Psychological functioning of caregivers for head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(1):18–25. Mehrabi A, Falakdami A, Mollaei A, et al. A systematic review of self-esteem and related factors among burns patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;84:104811. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 09 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 04 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 04 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 01 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9002268","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":617154491,"identity":"4458bf00-a7d1-4287-ac34-9b4e961898ab","order_by":0,"name":"Runyue Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Runyue","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":617154492,"identity":"1288ced4-4345-4eae-a11c-a4a90c791710","order_by":1,"name":"Jiyuan Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiyuan","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":617154493,"identity":"2c65fd66-8231-4da5-9ec5-a2bc1bba3621","order_by":2,"name":"Xue Xia","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xue","middleName":"","lastName":"Xia","suffix":""},{"id":617154494,"identity":"aaeb9b1d-ade1-4c06-bba0-ce0dc65ff08d","order_by":3,"name":"Yujie Ling","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yujie","middleName":"","lastName":"Ling","suffix":""},{"id":617154495,"identity":"7173d411-3f81-465f-a9f5-3c1525d6e3ad","order_by":4,"name":"Mengqian Bao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mengqian","middleName":"","lastName":"Bao","suffix":""},{"id":617154496,"identity":"f7465670-e910-438c-9277-7bd0a2790f78","order_by":5,"name":"Yawen Xie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yawen","middleName":"","lastName":"Xie","suffix":""},{"id":617154497,"identity":"370e3f1a-0164-4c29-a014-e73fbc764d70","order_by":6,"name":"Ying Hong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ying","middleName":"","lastName":"Hong","suffix":""},{"id":617154498,"identity":"12217427-59ca-4f60-94c7-3a837903a247","order_by":7,"name":"Juan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-01 14:53:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106533524,"identity":"ec6fb5a5-3765-49cd-91be-2dcd42f847f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-09 14:57:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27808,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLatent profile patterns of caregiving competence among family caregivers of burn patients\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9002268/v1/1296018cf3d6101fa5b75f10.png"},{"id":106993975,"identity":"ffbfed22-81f4-49ee-ab7c-911625abba79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 15:01:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":921740,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9002268/v1/864481d9-e4d0-4e61-b68c-623e4d986b5d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors of Caregiving Competence among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eBurn injuries represent a significant global health burden, characterized by high morbidity and substantial long-term disability. These traumatic injuries not only impose severe physical and psychological consequences on patients but also present considerable caregiving challenges for their family members [1]. The annual incidence of burns caused by flames, chemicals, electrical sources, and other etiological factors remains substantial worldwide. Such injuries result in extensive damage to cutaneous tissues, triggering a cascade of complications including abnormal pain perception, elevated infection risk, and functional impairment of affected extremities, accompanied by pronounced psychological stress responses such as anxiety and depression [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the current inequitable distribution of healthcare resources and the incomplete development of rehabilitation service systems, the responsibility for post-discharge care of burn patients predominantly falls upon family caregivers. Despite continuous advances in burn treatment technologies, patient recovery trajectories remain highly dependent on sustained, systematic caregiving support, positioning family caregivers as central figures in the rehabilitation process [3]. Family caregivers serve as critical support providers for burn patient rehabilitation, with their caregiving competence directly influencing patient recovery quality and prognosis [4].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a practical caregiving perspective, caregivers must undertake fundamental tasks including daily living assistance, wound care, and rehabilitation exercise facilitation, while simultaneously providing emotional support to alleviate patients\u0026apos; negative emotions and serving as communication bridges between patients and healthcare providers. These multifaceted demands impose substantial requirements on caregivers\u0026apos; comprehensive capabilities [5]. The adequacy of caregiving knowledge and skills possessed by caregivers significantly impacts patient recovery trajectories [6], confirming that caregiver heterogeneity exerts critical influences on patient outcomes. Therefore, developing a thorough understanding of burn caregiver competence composition and population characteristics constitutes an essential prerequisite for optimizing care quality and improving patient prognosis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLatent Profile Analysis (LPA) is a person-centered analytical approach capable of identifying distinct characteristic subgroups within populations and delineating inter-group differences, with statistical indicators providing measures of classification accuracy and validity [7]. LPA overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches that categorize populations based on scale cutoff values, enabling precise characterization of within-population heterogeneity. Through LPA, researchers can identify distinct profiles, clarify the influencing factors for each profile, and establish robust foundations for targeted interventions [8]. This study aimed to apply LPA methodology to identify caregiving competence types among family caregivers of burn patients based on five-dimensional competence indicators, and to explore the predictive effects of demographic characteristics, burn characteristics, and psychological factors on different caregiving competence profiles, thereby providing scientific evidence for developing targeted caregiver support programs and enhancing burn patient family care quality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Study Design and Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional study employed convenience sampling to recruit family caregivers of burn patients from the burn department of a tertiary hospital in Nanjing, China, between January 2020 and October 2025. Inclusion criteria were: (1) age \u0026ge;18 years; (2) primary caregiver for a burn patient with cumulative caregiving duration \u0026ge;1 month; (3) normal visual and auditory function with basic reading, comprehension, and language abilities; (4) clear consciousness without psychiatric history, provision of informed consent, and voluntary participation. Exclusion criteria were: (1) paid professional caregivers; (2) individuals simultaneously caring for other family members with serious illnesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSample size was calculated based on the requirement that sample size should be at least 10 times the number of independent variables. With 16 independent variables (caregiver age, caregiving duration, burn surface area, caregiver self-efficacy, gender, education level, residence, monthly household income, patient BMI, burn locations [head-face-neck, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, perineum], comorbidities, and medical coping styles), the minimum required sample was 160 participants. Accounting for a 10% invalid questionnaire rate, 167 participants were planned for recruitment. A total of 351 questionnaires were distributed, with 336 valid questionnaires retrieved, yielding an effective response rate of 95.73%. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Medical University (Approval No.: [to be added]), and all participants provided written informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Information Questionnaire:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eA researcher-designed questionnaire collected caregiver demographics (gender, age, education level, residence, marital status, monthly household income), caregiving role information (relationship to patient, caregiving duration), and patient clinical characteristics (burn surface area, burn location, burn severity, comorbidities).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Caregiver Task Inventory (FCTI):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOriginally developed by Clark and Rakowski in 1983 [9], with the Chinese version adapted by Li in Hong Kong (Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha;=0.92) [10]. The scale comprises five dimensions: adapting to the caregiver role (5 items), providing assistance and responding to changes (5 items), managing personal emotional needs (5 items), assessing family and social resources (5 items), and adjusting life to meet caregiving needs (5 items), totaling 25 items. A 3-point Likert scale (0=no ability, 1=partial ability, 2=full ability) is employed, with dimension scores ranging from 0-10 and total scores from 0-50, where higher scores indicate greater caregiving competence. In this study, Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; coefficients for the five dimensions were 0.834, 0.864, 0.847, 0.847, and 0.878 respectively, with an overall scale Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; of 0.921.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDeveloped by Schwarzer [11] and adapted into Chinese by Wang et al. [12]. This scale quantitatively assesses individuals\u0026apos; confidence in their ability to successfully complete tasks and overcome obstacles when facing various challenges. The Chinese version has been extensively applied in research involving healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers. The Chinese GSES demonstrates a Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; of 0.87 [12]; in this study, Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; was 0.904.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedical Coping Modes Questionnaire (MCMQ):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOriginally developed by Feifel in 1987 and adapted into Chinese by Shen et al. [13], comprising 20 items measuring coping strategies under disease-related stress across three dimensions: confrontation, avoidance, and acceptance-resignation. A 4-point Likert scale is used, with higher dimension scores indicating greater preference for that coping style. The Chinese MCMQ dimensions demonstrate Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; coefficients of 0.69, 0.60, and 0.76 respectively; in this study, Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; values were 0.892, 0.865, and 0.871.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch assistants received standardized training covering study objectives, data collection procedures, questionnaire completion guidelines, and problem-solving protocols. Following institutional and departmental approval, research assistants approached eligible caregivers in the burn department outpatient clinic and inpatient ward to explain the study purpose, content, and procedures. Questionnaires were administered after obtaining informed consent, with face-to-face guidance provided to ensure response quality. Completed questionnaires were immediately reviewed for missing or erroneous responses, with corrections made on-site. Questionnaire data were independently entered into SPSS databases by two researchers, with consistency verification and resolution of discrepancies through reference to original questionnaires.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 Statistical Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3. Continuous variables following normal distribution were expressed as mean \u0026plusmn; standard deviation (SD), while non-normally distributed variables were presented as median with interquartile range [M(P25, P75)]. Categorical variables were described using frequencies and percentages. Latent profile analysis was conducted using Mplus 8.3, with model fit evaluated using the following indices: Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC), with lower values indicating better fit; Entropy \u0026ge;0.8 suggesting acceptable classification accuracy, with values closer to 1 indicating higher accuracy; Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMRT) and Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), with P\u0026lt;0.05 indicating superior fit of the k-class model compared to the k-1 class model [14]. Univariate analyses employed chi-square tests for categorical variables, one-way ANOVA for normally distributed continuous variables, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests for non-normally distributed continuous variables. Statistically significant variables from univariate analyses were entered into multinomial logistic regression to explore influencing factors for different caregiving competence profiles. Statistical significance was set at \u0026alpha;=0.05.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e3.1 General Characteristics of Research Subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 351 questionnaires were distributed, with 15 invalid questionnaires excluded, resulting in 336 valid questionnaires. The average age was 45.53\u0026plusmn;15.77, caregiving duration was 12.29\u0026plusmn;6.5 months, and monthly family income per capita was distributed as follows: 125 cases in the 0-6000 yuan range, 101 cases in the 6001-9000 yuan range, 69 cases in the 9001-12000 yuan range, and 41 cases in the \u0026gt;12000 yuan range.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2 Results of Latent Profile Analysis of Family Caregivers\u0026apos; Caregiving Abilities for Burn Patients\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2.1 Analysis of Model Fit Indices\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used 5 dimensions of caregiving abilities of burn patients\u0026apos; family caregivers as manifest variables to construct 5 latent profile models. Model fit information is shown in Table 1. Analysis results showed that the LMR test P value of Model 5 was \u0026gt;0.05, which did not meet the fitting criteria; although Model 4\u0026apos;s Entropy was the lowest among the four models, it was still greater than 0.8, indicating good classification accuracy. After comprehensive consideration, the four-classification model could more clearly present the caregiving ability characteristics of different types of burn patients\u0026apos; family caregivers, therefore Model 4 was determined as the optimal latent profile model. Based on the scores of each category in Model 4 across the 5 dimensions of caregiving abilities (see Figure 1), each category was named as follows: C1, with scores significantly lower than the overall mean in all dimensions, was named \u0026quot;Comprehensively Weak Group\u0026quot;; C2, with scores approximating the overall mean in all dimensions, was named \u0026quot;Balanced Average Group\u0026quot;; C3, with scores showing a wave-like distribution, where dimensions of adapting to caregiver role and coping and providing assistance scored higher than the overall mean while other dimensions scored significantly lower than the overall mean, was named \u0026quot;Dual-Peak Advantage Group\u0026quot;; C4, with scores higher than the overall mean in all dimensions, was named \u0026quot;Comprehensively High-Ability Group\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Fit Information of Latent Profile Models for Caregiving Abilities of Burn Patients\u0026apos; Family Caregivers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"568\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdj.BIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEntropy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLMRT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(p)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBLRT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(p)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClass Probabilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2574.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2612.806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2581.084\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2234.722\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2295.795\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2245.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47321/0.52679\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2115.222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2199.198\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2129.412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.860\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17857/0.31548/0.50595\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2045.691\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2152.570\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2063.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17857/0.18452/0.29464/0.34226\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2024.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2153.788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2045.936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02381/0.17857/0.18155/0.29464/0.32143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: AIC=Akaike Information Criterion; BIC=Bayesian Information Criterion; Abic=Sample-Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; LMRT=Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test; BLRT=Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2.2 Latent Category Feature Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the standardized score distribution of each category across five dimensions of family caregiver care capacity in the four-class model, each category was named: Category 1 (17.9%): Scores in all dimensions were significantly below the overall mean (standardized scores \u0026lt;-0.8), named \u0026quot;Comprehensively Weak Group\u0026quot;; Category 2 (18.5%): Scores in adapting to caregiving roles and providing assistance dimensions were above the mean (standardized scores \u0026gt;0.5), while scores in managing personal emotional needs, assessing family and social resources, and adjusting life to meet care needs were below the mean (standardized scores \u0026lt;-0.3), showing a wave-like distribution, named \u0026quot;Dual-Peak Advantage Group\u0026quot;; Category 3 (29.5%): Scores in all dimensions were close to the overall mean (standardized scores between -0.2 and 0.2), named \u0026quot;Balanced Moderate Group\u0026quot;; Category 4 (34.2%): Scores in all dimensions were significantly above the overall mean (standardized scores \u0026gt;0.6), named \u0026quot;Comprehensive High Capacity Group\u0026quot;. Analysis of variance results showed that there were significant differences among the four categories across all five dimensions (all p\u0026lt;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.3 Univariate Analysis of Latent Categories of Burn Patient Family Caregiver Care Capacity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnivariate analysis of burn patient family caregiver care capacity latent categories revealed that caregivers in different care capacity categories showed statistically significant differences in age, self-role perception, education level, place of residence, monthly household income per capita, duration of care, self-efficacy level, and medical coping styles (including confrontational, avoidant, and submissive coping styles) (all P\u0026lt;0.05). Detailed results are shown in Table 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Chi-square Univariate Analysis of Burn Patient Family Caregiver Care Capacity Latent Categories (N=336)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall Weak Group (n=62)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBimodal Advantage Group (n=115)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBalanced Medium Group (n=99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComprehensive High-Energy Group (n=60)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; / F\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily caregiver\u0026apos;s age (years,\u0026nbsp;\\(\\bar{x}\u0026plusmn;s\\))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.58\u0026plusmn;16.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.46\u0026plusmn;15.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.09\u0026plusmn;15.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.48\u0026plusmn;15.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCare duration (months,\u0026nbsp;\\(\\bar{x}\u0026plusmn;s\\))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.79\u0026plusmn;6.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.12\u0026plusmn;6.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.69\u0026plusmn;6.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.42\u0026plusmn;6.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePatient\u0026apos;s burn area (%,\u0026nbsp;\\(\\bar{x}\u0026plusmn;s\\))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.27\u0026plusmn;11.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.10\u0026plusmn;9.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.28\u0026plusmn;9.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.50\u0026plusmn;5.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily caregiver\u0026apos;s self-efficacy (score,\u0026nbsp;\\(\\bar{x}\u0026plusmn;s\\))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.42\u0026plusmn;0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.79\u0026plusmn;0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.01\u0026plusmn;0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.10\u0026plusmn;0.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.825\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily caregiver\u0026apos;s gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.228\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29(46.77)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41(35.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46(46.46)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21(35.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Female\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33(53.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74(64.35)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53(53.54)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39(65.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily caregiver\u0026apos;s educational level [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Technical secondary school and below\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46(74.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77(66.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61(61.62)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(40.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- College and undergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16(25.81)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34(29.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29(29.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25(41.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Master\u0026apos;s degree and above\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0(0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(3.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9(9.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11(18.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidence [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.642\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Rural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53(85.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80(69.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67(67.68)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(63.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Urban\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9(14.52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35(30.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(32.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22(36.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily per capita monthly income (yuan) [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.551\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- 0~6000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25(40.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49(42.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(38.38)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13(21.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- 6001~9000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23(37.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36(31.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25(25.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(28.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- 9001~12000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12(19.35)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(14.78)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19(19.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21(35.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- \u0026gt;12000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(3.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13(11.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(17.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9(15.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether patient\u0026apos;s BMI \u0026le;24 Kg/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.963\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34(54.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71(61.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71(71.72)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42(70.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28(45.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44(38.26)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28(28.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18(30.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether head, face and neck are burned [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15(24.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14(12.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9(9.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(8.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47(75.81)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101(87.83)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90(90.91)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55(91.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether upper limbs are burned [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.902\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31(50.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(33.04)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40(40.40)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(40.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31(50.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77(66.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59(59.60)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36(60.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether trunk is burned [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.529\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.913\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30(48.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(49.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45(45.45)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27(45.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(51.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58(50.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54(54.55)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33(55.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether lower limbs are burned [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.663\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(38.71)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(49.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(57.58)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28(46.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(61.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58(50.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42(42.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(53.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether perineum is burned [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.873\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(8.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(14.78)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(5.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(5.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(91.94)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98(85.22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94(94.95)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(95.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhether complicated with chronic diseases [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.336\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(51.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46(40.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30(30.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(40.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30(48.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69(60.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69(69.70)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36(60.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily caregiver\u0026apos;s medical coping style [n(%)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Confrontation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(27.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41(35.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60(60.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43(71.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14(22.58)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53(46.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26(26.26)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10(16.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Yielding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31(50.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21(18.26)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13(13.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7(11.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* P\u0026lt;0.05, ** p\u0026lt;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: OR=Odds Ratio; 95%CI=95% Confidence Interval; using the comprehensive weak group as the reference group; Nagelkerke R\u0026sup2;=0.398; Hosmer-Lemeshow test: \u0026Chi;\u0026sup2;=11.573, P=0.172.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.4 Multivariate Analysis of Different Potential Categories of Caregiving Ability Among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlace of residence, caregiver self-efficacy, medical coping style (confrontation), monthly family income, burn injury to the head, face, and neck of the care recipient, burn area, are influencing factors of potential profiles of caregiving ability among family caregivers of burn patients (all\u0026nbsp;P\u0026lt;0.05). See Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Multinomial logistic regression analysis of different latent categories of caregiving ability among family caregivers of burn patients\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"568\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBimodal Advantage Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBalanced Moderate Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComprehensive High-Energy Group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCare Duration (months)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.984\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.934-1.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.961-1.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.054\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.986-1.128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurn Area (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.043*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.958\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.926-0.991\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.048**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.919-0.988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.106***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.851-0.951\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaregiver\u0026apos;s Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.570\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.767\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.891-3.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.802*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.104-4.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.515***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.547\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.135-9.683\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidence (Urban)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.963*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.619\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.073-6.392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.096*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.992\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.177-7.607\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.285*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.616\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.268-10.315\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonthly Household Income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.211\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.234\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.851-1.790\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.437*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.548\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.050-2.283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.678**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.969\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.274-3.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHead/Neck Burn (Yes)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.165-1.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.263*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100-0.802\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.465*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063-0.854\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerineal Burn (Yes)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.480\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.464-4.718\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.938\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.391\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095-1.610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.386\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.073-2.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.646**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.909\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.170-3.113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.096***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.992\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.749-5.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.122***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.609-5.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedical Coping Style - Confrontation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.194**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.301\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.394-7.817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.943***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.733-17.815\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.136***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.465\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.703-26.510\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedical Coping Style - Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.589***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.897\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.061-11.636\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.334**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.795\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.400-10.285\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.853\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.799-10.187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant Term\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.942*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.713***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.494***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: OR=odds ratio; 95%CI=95% confidence interval; with the overall weak group as the reference group; Nagelkerke R\u0026sup2;=0.398; Hosmer-Lemeshow test: \u0026Chi;\u0026sup2;=11.573, P=0.172.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study represents the first application of latent profile analysis\u0026mdash;a person-centered analytical approach\u0026mdash;in the domestic burn caregiver research domain, successfully identifying four caregiver types with distinct competence structural characteristics. This finding transcends the limitations of traditional variable-centered research that treats caregivers as a homogeneous population, providing a novel theoretical framework and practical pathway for understanding caregiver competence complexity and implementing precision interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Effects of Burn Surface Area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBurn surface area demonstrated significant negative effects across all three comparison groups (P\u0026lt;0.05), with the inhibitory effect strengthening progressively with increasing competence levels. This indicates that burn surface area exerts a gradient inhibitory effect on caregiving competence. This phenomenon occurs because larger burn areas are associated with greater wound infection risk, more severe functional impairment, and intensified psychological stress responses [15]. Patients with extensive burns require multiple daily wound cleaning and dressing changes, and are prone to depressive symptoms due to activity limitations or appearance changes [16]. When caregivers lack corresponding competencies, advancement to higher-level caregiving competence profiles becomes constrained. Therefore, psychological counseling delivered via telehealth and in-person home nursing guidance should be provided for patients with larger burn areas to improve family caregiver competence [17]. Duchin et al. [18] investigated burn patients\u0026apos; pain experiences and perceptions, finding that inpatients reported higher pain levels than outpatients, with patients particularly desiring more information about sleep, pain medications, alternative treatments, withdrawal, and addiction risks. These findings align with our conclusion regarding the inhibitory effect of burn surface area on caregiving competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Effects of Residence Location\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultinomial logistic regression results indicated that residence location was an independent influencing factor for family caregiver caregiving competence profiles (P\u0026lt;0.05). Rural caregivers demonstrated significantly higher probability of membership in the Globally Deficient Group compared to urban caregivers. This finding reflects the reality of unequal urban-rural healthcare resource distribution in China. Urban areas benefit from concentrated tertiary hospitals and comprehensive community health services, enabling caregivers to access burn care knowledge through multiple channels including hospital rehabilitation guidance clinics, community care training courses, and online professional consultations [19]. Conversely, rural areas face relative scarcity of healthcare resources with limited coverage of professional burn care training, forcing caregivers to largely rely on self-exploration for care delivery, resulting in generally weaker competencies in adapting to caregiver roles and assessing social resources [20]. Won et al. [21] found that racial and ethnic minority burn patients experienced worse itching and fatigue symptoms, indicating that healthcare inequalities affect care quality\u0026mdash;a finding that echoes our discovery regarding residence effects on caregiving competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Effects of Caregiver Self-Efficacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy demonstrated significant positive effects across all three comparison groups (P\u0026lt;0.01), with the strongest effect observed in the Bimodal Strength Group. Self-efficacy serves as the \u0026quot;psychological driving force\u0026quot; for caregivers to cope with difficulties; individuals with high self-efficacy proactively learn new skills and consult healthcare providers, while those with low self-efficacy tend to retreat following errors, impeding competence development [22]. This indicates that self-efficacy represents the core psychological driver for caregivers to break through caregiving dilemmas and enhance their competencies. Clinical observations reveal that even when facing patients with similar burn severity, caregivers with high self-efficacy demonstrate stronger learning initiative and problem-solving abilities. Wickens et al. [23] designed a pediatric burn patient mental health promotion program emphasizing the importance of post-trauma psychological support, particularly a six-week intervention plan for children aged 6-17 and their caregivers covering information gathering, reaction management, coping skill development, and problem-solving. This structured intervention aligns conceptually with the \u0026quot;self-efficacy ladder enhancement program\u0026quot; we propose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 Effects of Head-Face-Neck Burns\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHead-face-neck burns demonstrated significant negative effects only in the Bimodal Strength and Comprehensively Competent Groups (P\u0026lt;0.05). Patients with head-face-neck burns are susceptible to disfigurement and may experience swallowing or breathing difficulties, which not only increase nursing complexity but readily trigger serious psychological problems in caregivers [32]. Caregivers must simultaneously address complex nursing requirements and provide intensive emotional support; even high-competence caregivers experience constrained capability expression [33]. Head-face-neck burns may affect patient eating, speech, and even respiratory function, requiring caregivers to master specialized skills such as oral care and airway management. Especially when patients develop severe scar contractures, caregivers need to assist with complex functional exercises, demanding exceptionally high technical proficiency. Mehrabi et al. [35] systematically reviewed self-esteem and related factors among burn patients, finding significant negative correlations between facial burns, burn severity, burn percentage and self-esteem, while social support and family support showed significant positive correlations with self-esteem\u0026mdash;findings that echo our research and support our recommendation for specialized psychological counseling for caregivers of head-face-neck burn patients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.5 Methodological Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional burn care research has been largely confined to single-dimension total score comparisons or simple high-low groupings, struggling to capture structural differences in caregiver competencies. This study applied latent profile analysis to reveal natural classifications of caregiving competence among domestic burn caregiver populations, not only achieving methodological transformation from variable-centered to person-centered approaches but also providing new perspectives for precise identification of caregiver competence characteristics. Using the Bimodal Strength Group as an example, these caregivers demonstrate outstanding performance in adapting to caregiver roles and providing assistance, yet exhibit obvious weaknesses in emotion management and resource assessment\u0026mdash;an uneven development pattern easily masked in traditional total score evaluations. This method directly connects caregiver types with influencing factors, making intervention targets more explicit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.6 Implications for Transitional Care\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn transitional care practice, this study\u0026apos;s profile classification results hold significant clinical translation value. Transitional care emphasizes seamless care continuity from hospital to home and community throughout the patient journey. Given burn patients\u0026apos; extended recovery cycles and complex, evolving care needs, establishing systematic transitional care support networks is particularly essential. Based on the differentiated characteristics of four caregiver types, transitional care protocols can achieve precision design: for Globally Deficient Group caregivers, intensive pre-discharge training should be initiated with regular community nursing specialist follow-up mechanisms established; for Bimodal Strength Group caregivers, transitional care emphasis should focus on emotional support and social resource linkage, achievable through online psychological counseling hotlines and peer support groups; for Balanced Moderate and Comprehensively Competent Group caregivers, focus can shift to competency consolidation and advanced training, encouraging participation in caregiver mutual assistance network development. This stratified, classified transitional care model facilitates optimal healthcare resource allocation while enhancing overall family care quality and efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.7 Limitations and Future Directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study revealed latent categories and influencing mechanisms of burn patient family caregiver caregiving competence, certain limitations exist. The cross-sectional design captured only static caregiver competence characteristics, unable to reveal dynamic developmental trajectories or causal relationships. Convenience sampling may limit sample representativeness, particularly potentially excluding caregivers bearing the heaviest burdens who lack time for research participation. Self-report scales as primary measurement tools cannot completely avoid social desirability bias, with caregivers potentially responding based on ideal rather than actual situations. This study did not deeply explore family functioning, cultural beliefs, and other socioecological factors that may significantly influence caregiver competence development. Future research will focus on precision and sustainability of transitional care, collaborating with experts from burn surgery, rehabilitation medicine, psychology, and public health to construct integrated \u0026quot;hospital-community-home\u0026quot; transitional care systems and develop stratified, classified transitional care intervention protocols.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFamily caregivers of burn patients can be classified into four distinct latent profiles of caregiving competence: the Globally Deficient Group, the Bimodal Strength Group, the Balanced Moderate Group, and the Comprehensively Competent Group. Different caregiver profiles demonstrate significant variations in residence, self-efficacy, medical coping styles, education level, monthly household income, and patient burn surface area and head-face-neck burn status. Burn specialty healthcare providers and community care support personnel should reference the population characteristics of different caregiver profiles\u0026mdash;such as the Globally Deficient Group predominantly comprising rural, lower-educated, lower self-efficacy individuals, and the Bimodal Strength Group excelling in adapting to caregiver roles and responsive assistance yet demonstrating weakness in emotion management and resource assessment\u0026mdash;to provide individualized burn patient family care support. Recommendations include telehealth guidance for rural caregivers, visual-based training design for lower-educated caregivers, and specialized psychological counseling for head-face-neck burn patient caregivers to enhance family caregiver competence and patient rehabilitation quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides critical evidence for implementing precision, stratified caregiver support. Allocating resources according to profile-specific needs\u0026mdash;such as strengthening foundations for the Globally Deficient Group and addressing psychological shortcomings for the Bimodal Strength Group\u0026mdash;represents the essential pathway for achieving care quality improvement and resource optimization. Integrating profile analysis concepts into transitional care constitutes an important direction for advancing burn rehabilitation nursing practice toward precision care.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Relevance to clinical practice","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer direct and actionable implications for optimizing clinical care pathways for burn patients and their family caregivers. Firstly, burn care teams can integrate latent profile classification into routine clinical assessments\u0026mdash;conducting brief evaluations of caregivers\u0026rsquo; competence dimensions, demographic characteristics, and psychological status upon patient admission or prior to discharge. This enables targeted stratification of caregivers into the four identified profiles, facilitating the design of personalized pre-discharge training and follow-up plans. For example, rural caregivers in the Globally Deficient Group can be prioritized for telehealth-based skill training and regular community nurse home visits, while caregivers of patients with head-face-neck burns can be proactively connected to specialized psychological counseling services during the acute care phase. Secondly, the study supports the development of multidisciplinary transitional care models: collaborating with rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and community health workers to address profile-specific gaps\u0026mdash;such as enhancing emotion management skills for the Bimodal Strength Group or strengthening resource assessment capabilities for lower-income caregivers. Thirdly, clinical institutions can utilize the identified influencing factors (e.g., self-efficacy and confrontational coping) to develop structured intervention modules, such as self-efficacy enhancement workshops and coping skill training, which can be integrated into routine caregiver support programs. By translating these person-centered insights into clinical practice, healthcare providers can improve the continuity and effectiveness of family-centered care, reduce caregiver burden, and ultimately enhance patient rehabilitation outcomes while optimizing the allocation of limited healthcare resources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data involved in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank all the family caregivers of burn patients who participated in this study for their valuable time and contributions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received no specific financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors contributed as follows: Runyue Wang was responsible for conceptualization, study design, data collection, and manuscript drafting; Jiyuan Sun handled data curation, statistical and formal analysis, and result validation; Xue Xia conducted field investigation, provided resources, and managed the project; Yujie Lin assisted with data collection and literature search and review; Mengqian Bao constructed the data analysis framework and created data visualizations; Yawen Xie verified sample information and organized references; Ying Hong assisted with investigation and manuscript revision; and Juan Li supervised the study, critically reviewed the manuscript, and was responsible for manuscript revision and final approval.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorresponding authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondence to Juan Li, Email: [email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Approval No. 2025-SRFA-022). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi P, Zhang Q, Li D. Epidemiology and prognosis of burn injuries in China: a meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res. 2025;30(1):581.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŻwierełło W, Piorun K, Sk\u0026oacute;rka-Majewicz M, et al. Burns: Classification, Pathophysiology, and Treatment: A Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(4):3749.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsu KC. Impact of long-term outcomes on the caregivers of burn survivors. Burns. 2023;49(2):317\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevoy K, Rivera E, McHugh M, et al. Caregiver Engagement Enhances Outcomes Among Randomized Control Trials of Transitional Care Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Med Care. 2022;60(7):519\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRencken CA, Harrison AD, Aluisio AR, et al. A Qualitative Analysis of Burn Injury Patient and Caregiver Experiences in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa: Enduring the Transition to a Post-Burn Life. Eur Burn J. 2021;2(3):75\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarzan R, Parvizi A, Takasi P, et al. Caregivers' knowledge with burned children and related factors towards burn first aid: A systematic review. Int Wound J. 2023;20(7):2887\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeung CLK, Li KK, Wei VWI, et al. Profiling vaccine believers and skeptics in nurses: a latent profile analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;126:104142.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNylund-Gibson K, Choi AY. Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2018;4(4):440\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark NM, Rakowski W. Family caregivers of older adults: improving helping skills. Gerontologist. 1983;23(6):637\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi LT. Measuring the caregiving ability of family caregivers. Hong Kong Nurs J. 1998;34(3):21\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-efficacy Scale. In: Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal control beliefs. 1995:35\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang CK, Hu ZF, Liu Y. Reliability and Validity of General Self-Efficacy Scale. Appl Psychol. 2001;(1):37\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen XH, Jiang QJ. Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire Chinese version: test report of 701 cases. Chin Mental Health J. 2000;14(1):22\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang MC, Deng QW, Bi XY, et al. The performance of Entropy in latent profile analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2017;49(11):1473\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStrassle PD, Williams FN, Weber DJ, et al. Risk Factors for Healthcare-Associated Infections in Adult Burn Patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(12):1441\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang H, Yang J, Xia M, et al. Family members' knowledge, attitudes, practices, and caregiver burden in managing the health of patients with severe burn injuries. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1450356.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadeghi A, Barkhordar A, Tapak L, et al. Impact of Family Caregiver Training on Care of Burn Patients. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):270\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuchin ER, Moore M, Carrougher GJ, et al. Burn patients' pain experiences and perceptions. Burns. 2021;47(7):1627\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang L, Zeng Y, Wang L, et al. Urban-Rural Differences in Long-Term Care Service Status and Needs Among Home-Based Elderly People in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1701.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWon P, Stoycos SA, Ding L, et al. Worse Itch and Fatigue in Racial and Ethnic Minorities: A Burn Model System Study. J Burn Care Res. 2023;44(6):1445\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeyer K, Glassner A, Norman R, et al. Caregiver self-efficacy improves following complex care training: Results from the Learning Skills Together pilot study. Geriatr Nurs. 2022;45:147\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickens N, McGivern L, De Gouveia Belinelo P, et al. A wellbeing program to promote mental health in paediatric burn patients: Study protocol. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(2):e0294237.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRimmer RB, Bay RC, Alam NB, et al. Measuring the burden of pediatric burn injury for parents and caregivers: informed burn center staff can help to lighten the load. J Burn Care Res. 2015;36(3):421\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang BB, Patel KF, Wolfe AE, et al. Adolescents with and without head and neck burns: comparison of long-term outcomes in the burn model system national database. Burns. 2022;48(1):40\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLongacre ML, Ridge JA, Burtness BA, et al. Psychological functioning of caregivers for head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(1):18\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMehrabi A, Falakdami A, Mollaei A, et al. A systematic review of self-esteem and related factors among burns patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;84:104811.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-nursing","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nurs","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Nursing](http://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/nurs/default.aspx","title":"BMC Nursing","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"burns, family caregivers, caregiving competence, latent profile analysis, transitional care, influencing factors","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify distinct caregiving competence profiles among family caregivers of burn patients via latent profile analysis (LPA) and explore influencing factors for targeted interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional study recruited 336 caregivers from a Nanjing tertiary hospital (2020\u0026ndash;2025) using convenience sampling. Data were collected with FCTI, GSES, and MCMQ. LPA categorized caregivers, and multinomial logistic regression analyzed predictors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour profiles emerged: Globally Deficient (17.9%), Bimodal Strength (18.5%), Balanced Moderate (29.5%), and Comprehensively Competent (34.2%). Self-efficacy (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.071), confrontational coping (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.465), urban residence (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.616), higher education (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.547), and higher household income (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.969) positively predicted competence; larger burn surface area (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.900) and head-face-neck burns (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.231) had negative effects (all \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCaregiving competence is shaped by caregiver characteristics, patient burn features, and psychological factors. Tailored interventions (telehealth for rural caregivers, visual training for low-education groups, specialized counseling for head-face-neck burn caregivers) are recommended to improve outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Latent Profile Analysis and Influencing Factors of Caregiving Competence among Family Caregivers of Burn Patients","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-09 14:57:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9002268/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"232750380239206677232186993883083461048","date":"2026-04-14T13:03:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T10:53:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T10:58:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-04T09:08:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-04T09:06:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Nursing","date":"2026-03-01T14:46:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-nursing","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nurs","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Nursing](http://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/nurs/default.aspx","title":"BMC Nursing","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"eed72d0e-1509-435f-8696-0dfa4bf829c2","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-09T14:57:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-09 14:57:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9002268","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9002268","identity":"rs-9002268","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}