2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/157992
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Quality of Family Care: Views of Elders With and Without Cognitive Impairment
Abstract:
Quality of Family Care: Views of Elders With and Without Cognitive Impairment
Conference Sponsor:Western Institute of Nursing
Conference Year:2005
Author:Tetz, Karen, RN, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:Walla Walla College
Contact Address:10345 SE Market, Portland, OR, 97216, USA
Contact Telephone:503-251-6115 X 7313
Co-Authors:Jeannette OÆBrien, Patricia G. Archbold, Barbara J. Stewart, Mark Hornbrook
Quality of caregiver (CG) role enactment, as evaluated by elderly care receivers (CR) with no cognitive impairment (CI), has been found to comprise three dimensions: (1) affection, (2) attentiveness, and (3) skill of the CG in providing care. Seven CR and CG variables (e.g. CR mutuality & CG physical health), were associated with highly rated CG role enactment. It is unclear if these findings can be applied to CRs with CI. Elders with CI have often been excluded from research due to the belief that they may not be able to give reliable and valid information, but recent research has demonstrated that they retain a sense of self into the late stages of the illness, and are able to report on their present situation (Morrow-Howell et al., 2001; Feinberg & Whitlatch, 2001). Aims: Our goal was to compare how CRs with and without CI evaluate the care they receive. We compared the two groups in the following areas: factor analysis of the scale, relationships between the scale and selected CR and CG variables, and determining which CR and CG variables explained scale variance. Method: In this secondary analysis of baseline data from the Family Care Study, we examined 70 CRs with CI (Mini-Mental State Exam [MMSE] 0 to 23), and 123 CRs without CI (MMSE > 23) and their family CGs. CRs were members of a large group practice HMO and were referred to the HMOÆs home health agency. Results: For CRs without CI we found a clear three-factor scale structure. For CRs with CI, although three factors emerged, they were not as clear and interpretable. Overall, CRs with CI rated care less positively than CRs without CI. For CRs without CI, rating of CG role enactment was significantly associated with type of CG, CR positive affect (r = .31, p<.01), CR negative affect (r = -.18, p<.05), CR mutuality (r = .55, p<.01), CG physical health (r = .22, p<.01), and CG role strain (r = -.17, p<.05). For CRs with CI, rating of CGÆs role enactment was significantly associated with CR mutuality (r = .72, p<.01) and co-residence of the CG & CR (r = -.26, p<.05). Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that for CRs without CI, five variables (type of CG, CR positive affect, CR mutuality, CG physical health, CG depressive symptoms), explained 46% of variance in how the CR viewed their CGÆs role enactment. For CRs with CI, two variables (CR mutuality, CG physical health) explained 52% of variance in how the CR viewed their CGÆs role enactment. Implications: Lower ratings of CG role enactment by CRs with CI may indicate confusion about their care situation due to their dementia and perhaps more suspiciousness about how care is given. The different pattern of correlations may point to compromised validity of the scale for CI CRs; but high correlation with mutuality highlights the importance of a good relationship to high ratings of the care given for both groups.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleQuality of Family Care: Views of Elders With and Without Cognitive Impairmenten_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/157992-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Quality of Family Care: Views of Elders With and Without Cognitive Impairment</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Western Institute of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2005</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Tetz, Karen, RN, PhD</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Walla Walla College</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">10345 SE Market, Portland, OR, 97216, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">503-251-6115 X 7313</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">tetzk@wwc.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Jeannette O&AElig;Brien, Patricia G. Archbold, Barbara J. Stewart, Mark Hornbrook</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Quality of caregiver (CG) role enactment, as evaluated by elderly care receivers (CR) with no cognitive impairment (CI), has been found to comprise three dimensions: (1) affection, (2) attentiveness, and (3) skill of the CG in providing care. Seven CR and CG variables (e.g. CR mutuality &amp; CG physical health), were associated with highly rated CG role enactment. It is unclear if these findings can be applied to CRs with CI. Elders with CI have often been excluded from research due to the belief that they may not be able to give reliable and valid information, but recent research has demonstrated that they retain a sense of self into the late stages of the illness, and are able to report on their present situation (Morrow-Howell et al., 2001; Feinberg &amp; Whitlatch, 2001). Aims: Our goal was to compare how CRs with and without CI evaluate the care they receive. We compared the two groups in the following areas: factor analysis of the scale, relationships between the scale and selected CR and CG variables, and determining which CR and CG variables explained scale variance. Method: In this secondary analysis of baseline data from the Family Care Study, we examined 70 CRs with CI (Mini-Mental State Exam [MMSE] 0 to 23), and 123 CRs without CI (MMSE &gt; 23) and their family CGs. CRs were members of a large group practice HMO and were referred to the HMO&AElig;s home health agency. Results: For CRs without CI we found a clear three-factor scale structure. For CRs with CI, although three factors emerged, they were not as clear and interpretable. Overall, CRs with CI rated care less positively than CRs without CI. For CRs without CI, rating of CG role enactment was significantly associated with type of CG, CR positive affect (r = .31, p&lt;.01), CR negative affect (r = -.18, p&lt;.05), CR mutuality (r = .55, p&lt;.01), CG physical health (r = .22, p&lt;.01), and CG role strain (r = -.17, p&lt;.05). For CRs with CI, rating of CG&AElig;s role enactment was significantly associated with CR mutuality (r = .72, p&lt;.01) and co-residence of the CG &amp; CR (r = -.26, p&lt;.05). Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that for CRs without CI, five variables (type of CG, CR positive affect, CR mutuality, CG physical health, CG depressive symptoms), explained 46% of variance in how the CR viewed their CG&AElig;s role enactment. For CRs with CI, two variables (CR mutuality, CG physical health) explained 52% of variance in how the CR viewed their CG&AElig;s role enactment. Implications: Lower ratings of CG role enactment by CRs with CI may indicate confusion about their care situation due to their dementia and perhaps more suspiciousness about how care is given. The different pattern of correlations may point to compromised validity of the scale for CI CRs; but high correlation with mutuality highlights the importance of a good relationship to high ratings of the care given for both groups.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T20:24:12Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T20:24:12Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.