4.5 Article

Caregiver identity theory and predictors of burden and depression: Findings from the REACH II study

期刊

AGING & MENTAL HEALTH
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 212-220

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2018.1533522

关键词

Caregiving; dementia; Alzheimer's disease; mental health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the relationship between care recipient (person with Alzheimer's disease) ability to perform daily tasks and caregivers' (CG) perceived burden and depression, guided by the caregiver identity theory. We also examine the mediating effect of CG abilities to meet their basic needs. Methods: This study utilizes the baseline data of the REACH II study. Spearman's rho (rho) was used to test for relationships between burden, reported depression, and each ADLs and IADLs. To further explore the relationship between burden and each ADLs and IADLs, structural equation modeling was conducted using Mplus 8.0. Results: Reported CG total scores indicated increased perceived CG burden with greater number of assisted daily activities. CG depression scores were significantly predicted by reported burden scores and caregiver's ability to pay for basic needs. Importantly, 34.6% of variation in CG reported depressions scores were explained by reported burden scores. A multivariate regression model with reported burden scores, controlling for caregiver's ability to pay for basic needs, explained 36.6% of the variance in CG depression scores. Burden scores and CG ability to pay for basic needs significantly predicted depression scores. Results from the three models indicated that CG burden fully mediated the relationship between daily living skill scores and CG depression. Conclusion: Our study findings suggest the need to more closely examine the link between AD caregiving, financial instability, and mental health and bolster support for policies and programs that offer tangible supports and services to offset the costs of informal AD CG.

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