I recently took part in the above named research study. I thought that I would share some of the results-just as a matter of interest. Many of the results will come as no surprise.
Caregiver's health matters as it impacts their quality of live & ability to provide care.
As a result of their caregiving role, caregivers experienced impacts on their work, family & health.
With respect to social location, age and gender, both had a significant effect on outcomes, where women over 65 years of age were found to be more vulnerable; this suggests that these caregivers need more support;
Self-efficacy, or confidence in one's ability to deal with difficult situations was found to be an important predictor of caregivers' QoL
Judicial & mental health;
Caregivers responses suggest that, in their caregiving journey, there were three phases: the initial phase was marked by caregivers feeling overwhelmed; the middle phase reflected adjustment & routine, and; the late phase revealed acceptance & confidence in the caregiving role.
For caregiver-employees those working full time experienced more work interferences than those working part-time, casual, reduced hours etc.
The better the caregiver-employee's physical health, the fewer work interferences experienced.
Key message: the significant positive relationship between self-efface & QoL/health stresses the importance of supporting family caregivers to increase confidence in their ability to deal with difficult situations. This is specially true for women over 65 years & older. With respect to caregiver-employees, flexible caregiver-friendly workplace policies are needed to better manage work interferences, especially those employed full time.
This research was conducted using 194 caregivers of older adults with MCC from Alberta and Ontario, CANADA who responded to up to three x one hour telephone interviews, collected at two time points, six months apart, March and September, 2014.
The results of the study will be used to design ways to support family caregivers of persons with MCC, particular for caregiver-employees & women aged 65 years and older.
Lead researchers were from the University of Alberta, Canada and Mc Master University, Canada.
I certainly don't think that this little study proves that women over 65 have the most difficult time with caregiving someone with multiple chronic conditions, I do believe it is true. If studies like this help policy-makers and social agencies to take into consideration, wonderful! I was fifty-eight when my husband developed dementia. I remember thinking many times how lucky he was to have married a much younger woman! Now, at 70, I can not imagine starting the caregiver journey alone. I would need a lot more support than I did then, for sure!!
The more such studies, the better ... if they are used to educate and influence policy-makers.
I agree with Book interactive helmets are a great idea. I was thinking of writing a list for people considering taking on the care of their loved one. Helmet, duct tape, separate bathroom, fake duplicate car key. i would also add a collar for her dog with loved one's name and address. I once returned a neighbor to her family with the aid of the dog's collar.
She knocked on my door and said her family had driven off home to a nearby town and left her behind. While she used the bathroom I read the dogs collar so popped her in the car and took her home. She told me the name of the nearby town which turned out to be her own last name.
You know, JessieBelle, that they've found that helmets don't really protect the brain from constant or harsh impacts. The brain still shakes inside the skull. BUT, some protection is better than none.
If we're getting helmets, let's get the ones that can tell us if the impact caused concussion and therefore we must sit on the sidelines. If we can hook that up to a government agency, every time the helmet records our stress level to be too high, it would send a message to the government to send a respite caregiver to relieve us temporarily.
Dr. Wendy seems to be quite interested and a firm supporter of aging research. It's great to see someone who can be such a good resource.
Although I'm also glad to see these kinds of studies being done, I think that any study has to be viewed with a certain amount of scrutiny.
Anyone who's taken statistics knows that phraseology of the question can direct responses to an intended result.
The study group participants make a big difference. If the study group contains people whose caregiving has been done all at home, the results would I think be different from those whose families are in facilities. That's not to diminish the seriousness or either group, but the experiences are different.
Outside factors if not held constant can skew the results as well.
A study group also needs to be large enough to be statistically significant.
On the other hand, a smaller group can be hand picked with some confidence to yield certain results, which provide leverage to move to another level of pursing the issue in a different manner, such as development of assistance aids, identification of funding resources, etc. And sometimes these are necessary steps and don't need to be large studies.
This doesn't diminish the value of anyone's contribution; it's just a fact about how studies can be structured.
E.g., if you wanted to conduct a study that challenged Donald Trump's qualifications for president, you could call Fox News supporters, especially those who like Megyn Kelly, those who've been on that hiring or firing program (I don't remember what it's called), or Democrats.
If you wanted one that supported him, you could call his hairdressers. Even if he only has 5, the study results are reported that 100% of those surveyed supported him for president. The people who conducted the survey just don't let it be known that they only asked 5 people.
1/initially overwhelmed,
2/then move on to adjustment and routine and
3/finally accept and gain confidence in their role as caregiver.
They also figured out that if your workplace is supportive it makes life easier and if you have a community/family support system in place you will be better of mentally and your Q of L will be therefore be higher. Oh, and the older you are the harder it gets.
It's good that an effort is being made to study the issue, but honestly, most of that is just plain common sense. Why is it we need studies to tell us what caregivers already know and those in helping professions could easily learn if they just bothered to LISTEN to us?
First Nations, or any other demographic, was not a focus of the research--simply age and gender. They wanted to know how these factors changed what it was like to be a caregiver.
Participants were recruited by word-of-mouth.
Dr. Wendy Duggelby, the Principal Investigator, holds the Nursing Research Chair on Aging and Quality of Life and the Research Sponsor was the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
I'm still fairly young and feel intense stress at times, so I can only imagine those older who have their growing care needs trying to cope with that as well.
For my hub and I we are very blessed and fortunate to be in jobs where our bosses are very generous and flexible with needing time to take them to doc appointments which can be many with my mom. We have to make up the time, of course, but it helps a lot without feeling threatened that we'll lose our jobs over it. That is a rare thing in the workplace still. For the last two years I also switched to working at home full time so I can better deal with each day and crisis of some sort and still be productive. Elder care is not yet a top concern in workplaces, but I suspect as people are living far longer now that it will have to be addressed on some level eventually. Studies like these and others will hopefully help us all, whether FT caregiver, work and caregiver or any other combo. We are in dire need of some help and attention.
I'm wondering also what the target area was? Did it include any First Nations people?
And thanks for sharing. The more research that's properly conducted, the better for us as the issues become more publicized.
Sorry --iPad self correct!