共 50 条
Measuring the impact of informal elderly caregiving: a systematic review of tools
被引:62
|作者:
Mosquera, Isabel
[1
,2
]
Vergara, Itziar
[1
,3
,4
,5
]
Larranaga, Isabel
[4
,5
,6
]
Machon, Monica
[1
,3
,4
,5
]
del Rio, Maria
[7
,8
]
Calderon, Carlos
[1
,4
,9
]
机构:
[1] Osakidetza, Unidad Invest Atenc Primaria OSIs Gipuzkoa, San Sebastian, Spain
[2] Univ Basque Country, Programa Doctorado Salud Publ, Leioa, Spain
[3] Red Invest Serv Salud Enfermedades Cronicas REDIS, San Sebastian, Spain
[4] KRONIKGUNE, Ctr Invest Cronicidad, Bilbao, Spain
[5] Inst Invest Sanit Biodonostia, San Sebastian, Spain
[6] Gobierno Vasco, Delegac Terr Gipuzkoa, Dept Salud, San Sebastian, Spain
[7] Escuela Andaluza Salud Publ, Granada, Spain
[8] Inst Invest Biosanit Ibs Granada, Granada, Spain
[9] Osakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, Ctr Salud Alza, San Sebastian, Spain
关键词:
Caregivers;
Elderly;
Health;
Quality of Life;
Tool;
QUALITY-OF-LIFE;
CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY;
ALZHEIMERS-DISEASE;
FAMILY CAREGIVERS;
OLDER-ADULTS;
MENTAL-HEALTH;
RANDOMIZED-TRIAL;
WHOQOL-BREF;
COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT;
INTERVENTION PROGRAM;
D O I:
10.1007/s11136-015-1159-4
中图分类号:
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号:
摘要:
Purpose To classify and identify the main characteristics of the tools used in practice to assess the impact of elderly caregiving on the informal carers' life. Methods A systematic review of literature was performed searching in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBECS, LILACS, SiiS, SSCI and Cochrane Library from 2009 to 2013 in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, and in reference lists of included papers. Results The review included 79 studies, among them several in languages other than English. Their inclusion increased the variety of identified tools to measure this impact (n = 93) and allowed a wider analysis of their geographical use. While confirming their overlapping nature, instruments were classified according to the degree of integration of dimensions they evaluated and their specificity to the caregiving process: caregiver burden (n = 20), quality of life and well-being (n = 11), management and coping (n = 21), emotional and mental health (n = 29), psychosocial impact (n = 10), physical health and healthy habits (n = 2), and other measures. A high use in practice of tools not validated yet and not caregiver-specific was identified. Conclusions The great variety and characteristics of instruments identified in this review confirm the complexity and multidimensionality of the effects of elderly caregiving on the informal carer's life and explain the difficulties to assess these effects in practice. According to the classification provided, caregiver burden and emotional and mental health are the most evaluated dimensions. However, further work is required to develop integrated and caregiving focused procedures that can appraise this complexity across different countries and cultures.
引用
收藏
页码:1059 / 1092
页数:34
相关论文