4.5 Article

The impact of relationships, motivations, and meanings on dementia caregiving outcomes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 1816-1826

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610212000889

Keywords

cross-sectional; quantitative methods; positive aspects of care; informal caregiving

Funding

  1. ESRC-CASE
  2. Dementia UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Numerous theoretical models have been developed to explore how caregiving can impact on caregiving outcomes. However, limited attention has been given to the effects of caregivers' motivations for providing care, the meaning they find in caregiving, and the nature of their relationship with the care-recipient. The current study explored the associations between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, ability to find meaning in caregiving, and pre-caregiving and current relationship quality, and the way in which these variables interact to influence caregiving outcomes. Methods: This was a cross-sectional questionnaire study, in which the respondents were 447 caregivers of people with dementia who were in receipt of a specialist nursing service. Results: The results showed that intrinsic motivations, meaning, and pre-caregiving and current relationship quality were significantly related to each other, while extrinsic motivations were only related to intrinsic motivations and meaning. All these factors were significantly related to caregiving outcomes as measured by caregiver burden, role captivity, and competence. Conclusions: Based on these findings, it is recommended that interventions aimed at reducing caregiving stress should take into account the impact of the quality of the relationship and the caregivers' motivations for providing care. More longitudinal research is needed to explore how meanings, motivations, and relationship quality change over the caregiving career.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available