4.5 Review

Understanding the needs of caregivers of persons with dementia: a scoping review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 35-52

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610219000243

关键词

caregivers; dementia; elderly; needs; demands; old person; care provider; Alzheimer's disease

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation [FS2 201509FDN-IWKI-20675]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2017/13807-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The number of people living with dementia (PWD) is increasing worldwide, corresponding with an increasing number of caregivers for PWD. This study aims to identify and describe the literature surrounding the needs of caregivers of PWD and the solutions identified to meet these needs. Method: A literature search was performed in: PsycInfo, Medline, CINAHL, SCIELO and LILACS, January 2007-January 2018. Two independent reviewers evaluated 1,661 abstracts, and full-text screening was subsequently performed for 55 articles. The scoping review consisted of 31 studies, which were evaluated according to sociodemographic characteristics, methodological approach, and caregiver's experiences, realities, and needs. To help extract and organize reported caregiver needs, we used the C.A.R.E. Tool as a guiding framework. Results: Thirty-one studies were identified. The most common needs were related to personal health (58% emotional health; 32% physical health) and receiving help from others (55%). Solutions from the articles reviewed primarily concerned information gaps (55%) and the education/learning needs of caregivers (52%). Conclusion: This review identified the needs of caregivers of PWD. Caregivers' personal health emerged as a key area of need, while provision of information was identified as a key area of support. Future studies should explore the changes that occur in needs over the caregiving trajectory and consider comparing caregivers' needs across different countries.

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