Sophie Vandepitte1, Koen Putman2, Nele Van Den Noortgate3, Sofie Verhaeghe1, Lieven Annemans1. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dementia is a major public health problem with important physical, psychosocial, emotional, and financial consequences for patients, their caregivers, and society. Since patients prefer to be managed at home, extensive research has been conducted into effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to support informal caregivers. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an in-home respite care program. METHODS: In a prospective quasi-experimental study, 99 dyads who received an in-home respite care program were compared at 6 months post-baseline, with 99 matched dyads receiving standard dementia care. Additionally, the short-term effect of the program was evaluated 14 to 15 days post-intervention. The primary outcome was caregiver burden. The secondary outcomes were: desire to institutionalize the patient, caregiver quality of life, and frequency and impact of behavioral problems. Mixed model analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: After 6 months, no significant difference on caregiver burden was observed, but intervention group caregivers had a significant lower desire to institutionalize the patient compared with control group caregivers (adj.diff = -0.51; p = .02). Shortly after the program, intervention group caregivers also had a significant lower role strain (adj.diff = 0.75; p = .05), and a lower burden on social and family life (adj.diff = 0.55; p = .05) compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study was the first comparative study to investigate effectiveness of an in-home respite care program to support informal caregivers of persons with dementia. The results partly confirm earlier positive findings from explorative studies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Dementia is a major public health problem with important physical, psychosocial, emotional, and financial consequences for patients, their caregivers, and society. Since patients prefer to be managed at home, extensive research has been conducted into effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to support informal caregivers. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an in-home respite care program. METHODS: In a prospective quasi-experimental study, 99 dyads who received an in-home respite care program were compared at 6 months post-baseline, with 99 matched dyads receiving standard dementia care. Additionally, the short-term effect of the program was evaluated 14 to 15 days post-intervention. The primary outcome was caregiver burden. The secondary outcomes were: desire to institutionalize the patient, caregiver quality of life, and frequency and impact of behavioral problems. Mixed model analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: After 6 months, no significant difference on caregiver burden was observed, but intervention group caregivers had a significant lower desire to institutionalize the patient compared with control group caregivers (adj.diff = -0.51; p = .02). Shortly after the program, intervention group caregivers also had a significant lower role strain (adj.diff = 0.75; p = .05), and a lower burden on social and family life (adj.diff = 0.55; p = .05) compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study was the first comparative study to investigate effectiveness of an in-home respite care program to support informal caregivers of persons with dementia. The results partly confirm earlier positive findings from explorative studies.
Authors: Kohei Kajiwara; Jun Kako; Hiroko Noto; Yasufumi Oosono; Masamitsu Kobayashi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: S Vandepitte; L Van Wilder; K Putman; N Van Den Noortgate; S Verhaeghe; J Trybou; L Annemans Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.921