Measurement of Informal Care Giving Time: Exploring the Validity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Due to the rising life expectancy in developed countries the prevalence of dementia is increasing. One aim of dementia care is to postpone or avoid institutional care. Performing an economic evaluation of interventions with this aim from a societal perspective has to include informal care giving. We assessed informal care giving time using a modified version of the RUD and we will report on our findings about the validity of the instrument. Methods: Within the German IDA study (dementia care initiative in primary practice) two non-medical interventions are to be compared with current practice in dementia care over a period of two years. The primary endpoint is time the patient lives at home. To assess informal care giving time we used a modified version of the RUD developed by Wimo and colleagues. The questions were completed at baseline and after one year. Informal care giving is categorized in activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental ADL (IADL), and supervision. Three hundred fifty-seven informal caregivers stated the number of days and average hours per day of care provided to the patient for each category during the last four weeks. Additionally, we asked whether the interviewees were the primary informal caregiver and they should estimate the time of all other informal caregivers who are involved in caring for the patient. The questionnaire is applied as computer-assisted telephone interview. Using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient we analyzed construct validity by correlating total informal care time and its components with measures of ADL (Barthel-Index), IADL and disturbing behavior (NOSGER subscales), cognitive status (Mini Mental-Status Examination) and subjective burden of informal caregivers (Burden Scale for Family Caregivers BSFC). Results: First analysis showed that informal care time increased with the level of impairment in ADL and IADL. We also observed a substantial correlation between the subjective burden and the informal care time. About 60% of the patients were assisted by more than one informal caregiver. Total informal care time (all caregivers) correlated better with the instruments listed above than did informal care time of only the primary caregiver. Furthermore, caregivers who cared for their partners spent significantly more time than caregivers who were not the partner. Conclusions: The extended version of the questions on informal care of the RUD showed good external construct validity. Considering only the time of the primary informal caregiver results in underestimation of resource utilization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».