Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study

Autor: Silke F. Metzelthin, A.W. Ambergen, Marja Y. Veenstra, Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen, Job van Exel, Ellen Verbakel
Přispěvatelé: Applied Economics, Health Economics (HE), Health Services Research, RS: CAPHRI - R1 - Ageing and Long-Term Care, RS: Academische Werkplaats Ouderenzorg, RS: MHeNs - R1 - Cognitive Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, Psychiatrie & Neuropsychologie, FHML Methodologie & Statistiek
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2017
Předmět:
Ageing society
Gerontology
Male
Family caregiving
Cross-sectional study
IMPACT
medicine.medical_treatment
lcsh:Geriatrics
Inequality
cohesion and modernization
0302 clinical medicine
Risk groups
Cost of Illness
QUALITY-OF-LIFE
Residence Characteristics
030212 general & internal medicine
Ongelijkheid
cohesie en modernisering
media_common
Netherlands
Aged
80 and over
Rehabilitation
INSTRUMENT
030503 health policy & services
Institutionalization
Middle Aged
FAMILY
Caregivers
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS
Informal caregiving
Female
HEALTH
0305 other medical science
Research Article
Quality of life
medicine.medical_specialty
media_common.quotation_subject
Institutionalised long-term care
Community-dwelling older adults
VALIDATION
Home care
Ageing in place
03 medical and health sciences
Quality of life (healthcare)
medicine
Humans
OLDER-PEOPLE
Aged
Caregiving burden
business.industry
Public health
Long-Term Care
Self Concept
Long-term care
lcsh:RC952-954.6
Cross-Sectional Studies
SETTINGS
Geriatrics and Gerontology
business
Welfare
Zdroj: BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics, 17(1). BioMed Central Ltd.
BMC Geriatrics, 17
BMC Geriatrics, 17:232. BioMed Central Ltd
BMC Geriatrics, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2017)
ISSN: 1471-2318
Popis: Background Our ageing society is putting tremendous strain on public health and welfare programs to meet the needs of ageing individuals. Promoting informal caregiving is one way for policymakers to reduce this burden. However, caregiving may be experienced as stressful and is associated with adverse health consequences. While quite a lot of research focuses on caregiving for community-dwelling older adults, little is known about informal care in institutionalised long-term care (ILTC). Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to compare characteristics of informal caregivers and care receivers and caregiver outcomes - at home and in ILTC; 2) to study the association between these characteristics and positive and negative caregiver outcomes; 3) to investigate the moderating effect of the setting (at home vs. ILTC) on these associations. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using the TOPICS-MDS DataSet. A total of 5197 Dutch dyads were included. The average age of the care receivers and caregivers was respectively 80.7 years and 63.2 years. Several sociodemographic, health-related and caregiving-related characteristics of care receiver and caregiver and two caregiver outcomes (i.e., subjective burden and care-related quality of life) were included in the analyses. Results Caregivers in both settings experienced comparable levels of subjective burden. Caregivers at home had slightly lower care-related quality of life than caregivers in ILTC. Several care receiver characteristics (i.e., male sex, married/cohabiting, more morbidities/disability, and less self-perceived health/psychological wellbeing) and several caregiver characteristics (i.e., female sex, being younger, living together with the care receiver, more objective burden, less self-perceived health, and more support) were associated with an increase in burden and/or a decrease in care-related quality of life. Some of these associations were stronger for dyads at home compared to dyads in ILTC. Conclusions Informal caregiving does not stop with admission to an ILTC facility. Both settings need an informal caregiving policy, which is (1) tailored to the individual characteristics of care receivers and caregivers; (2) pays attention to the identified risk groups; and (3) reduces the negative caregiver outcomes and emphasizes the positive outcomes at the same time. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-017-0620-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: