4.5 Article

Four of a kind: Salient caregiver archetypes to better understand the psychosocial needs and behavioral patterns of dementia caregivers in Singapore

Journal

GERIATRIC NURSING
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 299-308

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.12.016

Keywords

Dementia; Caregiving; Typology; Archetypes; Qualitative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study examined and classified varying dementia caregiving experiences in an Asian setting, identifying four caregiver archetypes: Reluctant, Ambivalent, Enlightened, and Selfless. The findings provide a framework for targeted support in a holistic caregiver-centered manner.
Background: Family caregivers' lived experiences are often perceived as a homogenous entity, preventing effective identification of unique caregiving needs and appropriate support. Our study examined and classi-fied the varying dementia caregiving experiences in an Asian setting, through establishing caregiver archetypes.Methods: Secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 16 dementia family caregivers in a Singapore hospital was performed. Thematic analysis and typological analysis were utilized.Results: Four caregiver archetypes (Reluctant, Ambivalent, Enlightened, and Selfless) were identified: Reluc-tant caregivers possessed poor understanding of dementia and experienced immeasurable distress; Ambiva-lent caregivers carried mixed feelings towards caregiving and felt unsupported; Enlightened caregivers preserved care-recipients' dignity and accepted challenges with priority on sustainable care; Selfless care -givers were overly-devoted and enmeshed in the caregiver identity.Conclusion: Our findings are useful in providing a framework for: (1) rapid understanding of informal care -givers' varying needs, (2) targeted support in a holistic caregiver-centered manner.(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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