4.5 Review

Positive psychology outcome measures for family caregivers of people living with dementia: a systematic review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1281-1296

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610217000655

关键词

dementia; Alzheimer's disease; carers; rating scales

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme [RP-PG-0610-10108]
  2. National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Family caregivers of people living with dementia can have both positive and negative experiences of caregiving. Despite this, existing outcome measures predominately focus on negative aspects of caregiving such as burden and depression. This review aimed to evaluate the development and psychometric properties of existing positive psychology measures for family caregivers of people living with dementia to determine their potential utility in research and practice. Method: A systematic review of positive psychology outcome measures for family caregivers of people with dementia was conducted. The databases searched were as follows: PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed. Scale development papers were subject to a quality assessment to appraise psychometric properties. Results: Twelve positive outcome measures and six validation papers of these scales were identified. The emerging constructs of self-efficacy, spirituality, resilience, rewards, gain, and meaning are in line with positive psychology theory. Conclusions: There are some robust positive measures in existence for family caregivers of people living with dementia. However, lack of reporting of the psychometric properties hindered the quality assessment of some outcome measures identified in this review. Future research should aim to include positive outcome measures in interventional research to facilitate a greater understanding of the positive aspects of caregiving and how these contribute to well-being.

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