4.4 Article

The Effect of Physical and Cognitive Impairments on Caregiving

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 58, 期 7, 页码 601-609

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001323

关键词

functional activity; dementia; long-term care and support; caregiving

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [NIA U01AG009740]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many older adults receive caregiving; however, less is known about how a change in a care recipient's functional activity limitations [instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and basic activities of daily living (ADL)] as well as their cognitive impairment influence the amount of caregiving received. Methods: Using the Health and Retirement Study (2002-2014) we identified community-dwelling respondents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD; n=674), cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND; n=530), and no cognitive impairment (n=6126). We estimated a series of two-part regression models to identify the association between care recipients' level of cognitive impairment, change in total number of IADL/ADL limitations and amount of caregiving received. Results: Persons with ADRD received 235.8 (SD=265.6) monthly hours of care compared with 26.0 (SD=92.6) and 6.0 (SD=40.7) for persons with CIND and no cognitive impairment, respectively. An increase in one IADL/ADL limitation resulted in persons with ADRD and CIND receiving 4.90 (95% confidence interval: 3.40-6.39) and 1.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.17-2.69) more hours of caregiving than persons with no cognitive impairment. Increases in total IADL/ADL limitations were associated with persons with ADRD, but not CIND, receiving more days of caregiving and having more caregivers than persons with no cognitive impairment. Conclusions: Compared with persons with no cognitive impairment, increases in IADL/ADL limitations disproportionally increases the caregiving received for persons with ADRD. Policies and programs must pay attention to functional impairments among those living with ADRD.

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

4.4
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