4.5 Article

Coping as a caregiver: A question of strain and its consequences on life satisfaction and health-related quality of life

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 261-270

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2015.06.007

关键词

Caregivers; Strain; Burden; HRQoL; Life satisfaction

资金

  1. Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, the county Skane
  2. Medical Faculty at Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A majority of us will at some point in our lives take care of family members, relatives and friends in need of assistance. How will this affect us? Strain related to life satisfaction (LS) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) among caregivers aged 60 years and older has not been previously studied. Objectives: The main objective was to describe characteristics of non-caregivers (n = 2233) and caregivers (n = 369). Further objectives were to examine differences in HRQoL and LS between caregivers and non-caregivers, and between caregivers stratified by level of strain. Methods: We analyzed the differences in socio-demographics, social participation, locus of control and symptoms between groups. HRQoL was assessed by Short Form Health Survey (SF-12/PCS and MCS). LS was measured by the Life Satisfaction Index-A (LSI-A). Results: Caregivers were younger, had more years of formal education, more often cohabiting and relied less on powerful others than non-caregivers. One hundred and thirty-three (36%) caregivers reported high strain. In a three-group comparison including non-caregivers and caregivers stratified for strain, high strain was associated with lower SF12-PCS, SF12-MCS and LSI-A (0.014, <0.001 and <0.001, respectively). Conclusion: High strain affects caregivers' HRQoL and LS in a negative way. Practice: It is important for the health care sector to consider the possibility that symptoms in a person acting as a caregiver can be related to high perceived strain. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据