4.5 Article

Sleep disturbances and interrelationship between persons with dementia and family caregivers: The lived experiences of Korean American Dyads

期刊

GERIATRIC NURSING
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 144-151

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.10.028

关键词

Dementia patient; Family caregivers; Sleep disturbances; Dyad association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the sleep quality in dyadic interrelationships between Korean American persons with dementia (PWD) and their family caregivers. The findings reveal bidirectional influences in the sleep disturbances of these dyads, where caregiving impacts PWD sleep as part of an interactional unit. Communication barriers and limited community resources pose challenges for these dyads, highlighting the importance of culturally competent interventions.
Background: Little research has investigated sleep quality in dyadic interrelationships between persons with dementia (PWD) and family caregivers, particularly among immigrant ethnic minorities, such as Korean Americans.Purpose: The study aimed to describe lived experiences of sleep disturbances and sleep interrelationships between Korean American PWD and their family caregivers.Methods: A descriptive qualitative design used semi-structured interviews with cohabitating PWD-caregiver dyads. Results: Eleven Korean American dyads participated (PWD mean age: 82.7, SD=2.3; caregivers mean age: 69.1, SD=10.2). Major themes included (1) linked sleep disturbances between PWD and caregivers, (2) interrelationship in dyads, (3) language challenges within and outside the dyads, and (4) strategies that improve sleep quality for dyads.Conclusion: Findings demonstrated bidirectional influences in dyadic sleep disturbances, where caregiving reciprocally impacted PWD sleep as part of an interactional unit. Communication barriers and limited community resources posed challenges for these dyads. Future sleep interventions should consider culturally competent, dyadic approaches.

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