Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study.
BMC Geriatr. 2017 10 10; 17(1):232.BG

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, Netherlands. s.metzelthin@maastrichtuniversity.nl.Department of Sociology, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Huis voor de Zorg, P.O. Box 5185, 6130 PD, Sittard, Netherlands.Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, Netherlands.Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, Netherlands. g.kempen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29017453

Citation

Metzelthin, Silke F., et al. "Positive and Negative Outcomes of Informal Caregiving at Home and in Institutionalised Long-term Care: a Cross-sectional Study." BMC Geriatrics, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017, p. 232.
Metzelthin SF, Verbakel E, Veenstra MY, et al. Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):232.
Metzelthin, S. F., Verbakel, E., Veenstra, M. Y., van Exel, J., Ambergen, A. W., & Kempen, G. I. J. M. (2017). Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics, 17(1), 232. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0620-3
Metzelthin SF, et al. Positive and Negative Outcomes of Informal Caregiving at Home and in Institutionalised Long-term Care: a Cross-sectional Study. BMC Geriatr. 2017 10 10;17(1):232. PubMed PMID: 29017453.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study. AU - Metzelthin,Silke F, AU - Verbakel,Ellen, AU - Veenstra,Marja Y, AU - van Exel,Job, AU - Ambergen,Antonius W, AU - Kempen,Gertrudis I J M, Y1 - 2017/10/10/ PY - 2016/09/16/received PY - 2017/10/02/accepted PY - 2017/10/12/entrez PY - 2017/10/12/pubmed PY - 2018/4/19/medline KW - Ageing in place KW - Caregiving burden KW - Community-dwelling older adults KW - Family caregiving KW - Home care KW - Informal caregiving KW - Institutionalised long-term care KW - Quality of life SP - 232 EP - 232 JF - BMC geriatrics JO - BMC Geriatr VL - 17 IS - 1 N2 - 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. SN - 1471-2318 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29017453/Positive_and_negative_outcomes_of_informal_caregiving_at_home_and_in_institutionalised_long_term_care:_a_cross_sectional_study_ L2 - https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-017-0620-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -