4.5 Article

Burden of caregivers who care for oldest-old parents with disability: A cross-sectional study

期刊

GERIATRIC NURSING
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 792-798

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.04.013

关键词

Adult children; Chinese; Caregiver burden; Disability; Parent-child dyads

资金

  1. China National Natural Science Foundation [71804201, 71233001, 71110107025]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2018A0303130046]
  3. Zhejiang University School of Medicine
  4. U.S. National Institute on Aging [R01AG023627]
  5. China Social Science Foundation
  6. UNFPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that adult-children caregivers of disabled oldest-old Chinese perceived heavier burden if the care recipients had low positive emotions, multiple chronic diseases, and caregivers spent more time caregiving.
Objective: To describe the characteristics of oldest-old Chinese with disability and their adult-child caregivers, and the extent to which these characteristics were associated with caregiver burden. Methods: The study was based on 168 pairs of disabled oldest-old adults and their adult-child caregivers, derived from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Descriptive analyses of care recipients' and caregivers' characteristics were conducted respectively, in reference to caregiver burden. Statistically significant characteristics identified in these bivariate analyses were then jointly evaluated in multiple linear regression models with caregiver burden as the outcome. Results: Care recipients positive emotion status [(beta =-0.227 (-0.412,-0.042)], multiple chronic disease [(beta = 0.513 (0.081, 0.945)], and caregivers spent more caregiving time [(beta = 0.225 (0.061, 0.389)] were main factors associated with caregiver burden. Conclusion: Adult-children caregivers perceived heavier burden if care recipients had low positive emotions, had multiple chronic diseases, and caregivers spent more time caregiving. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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