Background
Methods
Settings and participants
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
-
To be in a psychological support training in the moment of the intervention’s proposal;
-
Not to sign the informed consent;
-
To have psychiatric pathologies;
-
To be professional home nurses.
Recruitment
Non adhesion reason | Frequencies | % |
---|---|---|
Refusal a priori/ no explanations | 11 | 12,1 |
Delegation to in-home nurse | 16 | 17,6 |
Perception to be Too old | 3 | 3,3 |
Perception to be already engaged | 5 | 5,5 |
Increased patient’s health | 5 | 5,5 |
Non identified caregiver | 4 | 4,4 |
Patent’s refusal | 10 | 11,0 |
Multiple caregiver, strong network | 5 | 5,5 |
Simple mortality (patient death, hospitalized) | 32 | 35,2 |
Total | 91 | 100 |
Ethics statement
Assessment measures
The qualitative phase: development of the “Engage-in-Caring intervention”
The quantitative phase: statistical analysis
Results
Qualitative results: the “Engage-in-Caring intervention”
-
To address the first objective - information and communication management - some exercises were developed in order to provide caregivers with tools useful to increase their awareness about knowledge and information related to their loved one’s disease and care requirements; moreover some exercises were developed to help caregivers in more effectively communicate and relate with the care team.
-
To address the second objective - learning to navigate healthcare organizations and getting organized - some exercises were designed to help caregivers to effectively monitor their loved ones’ health parameters and life style habits.
-
To address the third objective - taking care of own wellbeing - the handbook provides some tools to help caregivers in enhancing their awareness about the importance of taking care also of themselves and to support them in finding time and space to plan rewarding activities useful to reach a wellbeing status unless their caring role.
-
To address the fourth objective - finding a balance - the handbook proposes narrative tasks to make caregivers able to psychologically elaborate their caring experience and tools to identify internal resources or external sources of support useful to make them able to find a balance between their caregiving role and their other life tasks.
Quantitative results: statistical analysis
Patients’ Caregiver | Age | ||
---|---|---|---|
Mother or Father | 10% | 30–50 | 35% |
Sons | 45% | 51–60 | 17% |
Wife/Husband | 29% | 61–70 | 26% |
Sister/Brother | 16% | 71–80 | 13% |
Years of caregiving | > 80 | 9% | |
1–5 years | 22% | Job | |
6–10 years | 56% | Employee | 24% |
11–20 years | 11% | Free lance | 20% |
21–34 years | 11% | Retired | 12% |
Presence of in-home nurse | 55% | Unemployed | 4% |
Sons (% yes) | 69% | Housewife | 36% |
Gender | Other | 4% | |
Female | 83% | ||
Male | 17% |
CBI Physical Burden | Health Literacy | |
---|---|---|
Chi Squared | 6,483 | 3,560 |
Sig. Asint | ,011 | ,059 |
T0 mean score | 10,727 | 1,545455 |
T1 mean score | 8,786 | 2,642857 |
T0 | T1 | |
---|---|---|
CHE-S | 1,36 | 1,57 |
HCCQ | 4,9 | 5,7 |
MUIS | 15 | 14 |
Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy: Managing Disruptive Behaviours | 27 | 30 |
CBI: Perceived Developmental Burden | 13 | 11 |