Francesca Falzarano1, Verena R Cimarolli2, Jillian Minahan3, Amy Horowitz4. 1. Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. LeadingAge LTSS Center @UMass Boston, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 3. Psychology Department, Fordham University, Bronx, New York, USA. 4. Graduate School of Social Services, Fordham University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Extensive literature has documented the experiences of informal caregivers and their interactions with formal care providers, yet this research is almost entirely limited to caregivers who live near their care-recipients. This study aims to describe long-distance caregivers' (LDC) experiences (e.g., satisfaction and challenges) with formal care providers. Subgroup differences were examined based on the care-recipient's (CR) dementia status and residential setting (community versus residential care). METHODS: Data were collected from 296 LDCs (Mage = 56.64, SD = 12.40) categorized into four subgroups based on CR dementia status and residential setting. Participants rated their overall satisfaction, satisfaction with communication and information, and described challenges faced in their interactions with formal care providers. RESULTS: Challenges related to formal care providers were significantly greater and satisfaction significantly lower among LDCs of CRs in residential care, irrespective of dementia status, when compared to LDCs of CRs in the community. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the experiences of a growing segment of the caregiver population managing care from a distance, specifically in their interactions with formal care providers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study point to the possible necessity for the development of novel interventions to improve and enhance communication and collaboration between FCPs and informal caregivers.
OBJECTIVES: Extensive literature has documented the experiences of informal caregivers and their interactions with formal care providers, yet this research is almost entirely limited to caregivers who live near their care-recipients. This study aims to describe long-distance caregivers' (LDC) experiences (e.g., satisfaction and challenges) with formal care providers. Subgroup differences were examined based on the care-recipient's (CR) dementia status and residential setting (community versus residential care). METHODS: Data were collected from 296 LDCs (Mage = 56.64, SD = 12.40) categorized into four subgroups based on CR dementia status and residential setting. Participants rated their overall satisfaction, satisfaction with communication and information, and described challenges faced in their interactions with formal care providers. RESULTS: Challenges related to formal care providers were significantly greater and satisfaction significantly lower among LDCs of CRs in residential care, irrespective of dementia status, when compared to LDCs of CRs in the community. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the experiences of a growing segment of the caregiver population managing care from a distance, specifically in their interactions with formal care providers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study point to the possible necessity for the development of novel interventions to improve and enhance communication and collaboration between FCPs and informal caregivers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Long-distance caregiving; caregiving; formal care providers; long-term care; nursing homes
Authors: R Harding; E Epiphaniou; D Hamilton; S Bridger; V Robinson; R George; T Beynon; I J Higginson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lee A Jennings; David B Reuben; Leslie Chang Evertson; Katherine S Serrano; Linda Ercoli; Joshua Grill; Joshua Chodosh; Zaldy Tan; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: J H Gittell; K M Fairfield; B Bierbaum; W Head; R Jackson; M Kelly; R Laskin; S Lipson; J Siliski; T Thornhill; J Zuckerman Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 2.983