MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2563310072 · doi:10.1111/jgs.14655

I'm So Glad You're Here: Positive Aspects of Informal Caregiving

2016· letter· en· W2563310072 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Brad A. Meisner, Leslie E. Binnington

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineThematic analysisQualitative researchBurnoutPopulationBachelorGerontologyNursingPsychologyClinical psychologySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Informal caregivers are essential for an aging population.1, 2 Unpaid care, usually provided to older family members, allows care recipients to remain in the community, thereby alleviating demands on formal health systems.2, 3 The preponderance of research focuses on the negative biopsychosocial and financial outcomes of caregiving (e.g., strain, burnout).4 Although these consequences are frequently experienced, the affirming attributes of informal caregiving are currently underrepresented in the literature and in practice.5 As such, this study explored first-person accounts of positive aspects of informal caregiving. Using principles of qualitative description,6 participants were recruited through purposive and convenience sampling. Recruitment announcements were advertised university-wide at Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) through online forums and a caregiver support group. Participation was open to faculty and staff members who were informal caregivers. Eleven female family caregivers participated, ranging in age from 46 to 58. Nine were married or common-law partners, and two were divorced; 10 were white, and one was mixed ethnicity; and three had postsecondary diplomas, five had bachelor degrees, and three had graduate degrees. Open-ended in-person interviews lasting 36–77 minutes were conducted. Interviews were facilitated using a piloted semistructured guide that included questions such as: What have been your positive experiences as a caregiver? How have these positive experiences influenced you? Interviews were transcribed, and the authors conducted thematic analysis7 of the responses to ensure trustworthiness. Five themes emerged. Participants experienced a number of positive emotions, such as joy (P8). They felt privileged (P9), lucky (P6, P11), and grateful (P1) for the opportunity to provide informal care to their family member. One participant stated, “I treasure these times with my father” (P9). The intrinsic value of being highly committed to something (P4) was emphasized. Participants noted better time management and task-prioritizing skills. For example, “I'm better organized than I was” (P5), and “I can make choices that are right for me … then focus on what those priorities are and really stick to them. That's a source of happiness” (P7). Participants also became more patient (P3, P10) with care recipients and others in times of stress (e.g., coping with changes in parent–child dynamics and care recipient health status). Participants developed stronger relationships with their care recipients through caregiving. One participant stated, “You go in, and they light up and say, ‘I'm so glad you're here!’ It's that moment of, ‘Oh, I've made you feel better, and you know you can count on me. I'm going to be there for you.’ It's giving them security that is a real positive thing” (P3). Participants highlighted that relationships with siblings were strengthened through negotiating responsibilities of care for their older parent(s). “We all really appreciate what each of us are doing” (P1), and “I think that it has brought us closer together” (P6). Participants described enhanced capabilities of expressing empathy with care recipients, other caregivers, and people in general. This result was due to critical reflection and greater appreciation for the challenges that others may face. Participants said, “anybody I talk to about caregiving has their own story” (P4), “it's made me aware of individuals in different ways … if they're saying or doing something and I'm like, ‘Oh my God, where did that come from?’ Maybe he's not having a good day” (P2), and “it helps me keep things in perspective” (P11). Based on their caregiving experience, some participants were motivated to promote the rights and dignities of older people. For example, “our population is aging, and if you're going to have a lot of people in nursing homes or assisted living, we better do something now … I've looked at the regulations and policies and laws that govern these places, and it makes you want to stand up and shout, ‘This has got to get better!’ … It makes me wish that I could be a part of a group that stands for better seniors' care” (P7). Informal caregiving generates numerous, diverse, positive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and community-level experiences. The affirming attributes generated from caregiving help improve and sustain the caregiver–care recipient relationship, support caregivers’ abilities to survive the stresses of caregiving, and provide them with resources in times to thrive. Practitioners with patients who have, or are, informal caregivers can help attenuate the health-related consequences of caregiving while simultaneously endorsing the affirming qualities—the latter may contribute to the prior. Having a more-equal balance between negative and positive aspects of informal caregiving may improve not only caregivers’ lives, but also the quality of life and care that older adults receive outside formal health systems. Conflict of Interest: None. Author Contributions: Both authors had a role in developing the study concept and design, recruitment of participants, collection and analysis of data, interpretation of findings, and preparation of the manuscript. Sponsor's Role: No sponsor.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,003
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietyMême sujetIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingTravaux en français237 207