MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387877669 · doi:10.1186/s13690-023-01200-5

Healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults in the Ashanti region of Ghana: a study based on the health belief model

2023· article· en· W4387877669 sur OpenAlexafffund
Williams Agyemang‐Duah, Mark W. Rosenberg

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchives of Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesQueen's University
Mots-clésPoisson regressionHealth careContext (archaeology)MedicineGerontologyHealth belief modelPublic healthPopulationEnvironmental healthNursingHealth educationGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Existing global evidence suggests that informal caregivers prioritize the health (care) of their care recipients (older adults) over their own health (care) resulting in sub-optimal health outcomes among this population group. However, data on what factors are associated with healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults are not known in a sub-Saharan African context. Guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM), the principal objective of this study was to examine the association between the dimensions of the HBM and healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. METHODS: Data were extracted from a large cross-sectional study of informal caregiving, health, and healthcare survey among caregivers of older adults aged 50 years or above (N = 1,853; mean age of caregivers = 39.15 years; and mean age of care recipients = 75.08 years) in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between the dimensions of the HBM and healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults. Statistical significance of the test was set at a probability level of 0.05 or less. RESULTS: The results showed that 72.9% (n = 1351) of the participants were females, 56.7% (n = 1051) were urban informal caregivers and 28.6% (n = 530) had no formal education. The results further showed that 49.4% (n = 916) of the participants utilized healthcare for their health problems at least once in the past year before the survey. The final analysis showed a positive and statistically significant association between perceived susceptibility to a health problem (β = 0.054, IRR = 1.056, 95% CI = [1.041-1.071]), cues to action (β = 0.076, IRR = 1.079, 95% CI = [1.044-1.114]), self-efficacy (β = 0.042, IRR = 1.043, 95% CI = [1.013-1.074]) and healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults. The study further revealed a negative and statistically significant association between perceived severity of a health problem and healthcare utilization (β= - 0.040, IRR = 0.961, 95% CI= [0.947-0.975]) among informal caregivers of older adults. The results again showed that non-enrollment in a health insurance scheme (β= - 0.174, IRR = 0.841, 95% CI= [0.774-0.913]) and being unemployed (β= - 0.088, IRR = 0.916, 95% CI= [0.850-0.986]) were statistically significantly associated with a lower log count of healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study to a large extent support the dimensions of the HBM in explaining healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Although all the dimensions of the HBM were significantly associated with healthcare utilization in Model 1, perceived barriers to care-seeking and perceived benefits of care-seeking were no longer statistically significant after controlling for demographic, socio-economic and health-related variables in the final model. The findings further suggest that the dimensions of the HBM as well as demographic, socio-economic and health-related factors contribute to unequal healthcare utilization among informal caregivers of older adults in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,371
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,980

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,066
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations17
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchives of Public HealthMême sujetIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingTravaux en français237 207