4.5 Review

Family caregiving of persons with dementia - Prevalence, health effects, and support strategies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 240-249

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajgp.12.3.240

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P50 HL65111, P50 HL65112] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG15321] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [K01 MH065547, P30 MH52247, U01-MH46015] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINR NIH HHS [R01 NR08272] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors summarize the dementia caregiving literature and provide recommendations regarding practice guidelines for health professionals working with caregivers. Family caregiving of older persons with disability has become commonplace in the United States because of increases in life expectancy and the aging of the population, with resulting higher prevalence of chronic diseases and associated disabilities, increased constraints in healthcare reimbursement, and advances in medical technology As a result, family members are increasingly being asked to perform complex tasks similar to those carried out by paid health or social service providers, often at great cost to their own well-being and great benefit to their relatives and society as a whole. The public health significance of caregiving has spawned an extensive literature in this area, much of it focused oil dementia caregiving because of the unique and extreme challenges associated with caring for someone with cognitive impairment. This article summarizes the literature on dementia caregiving, identities key issues and major findings regarding the definition and prevalence of caregiving, describes the psychiatric and physical health effects of caregiving, and reviews various intervention approaches to improving caregiver burden, depression, and quality of lift. Authors review practice guidelines and recommendations for healthcare providers in light of the empirical literature on family caregiving.

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