A typology of caregiving spouses of geriatric patients without dementia: caring, worried, desperate

Thomas Johann Gehr, Ellen Freiberger, Cornel Christian Sieber, Sabine Alexandra Engel, Thomas Johann Gehr, Ellen Freiberger, Cornel Christian Sieber, Sabine Alexandra Engel

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of older people in Germany receive care at home from family members, particularly from spouses. Family care has been associated not only with subjective burden but also with negative effects on caregivers' health. A heterogeneous group, caregivers are confronted with individual situational demands and use different available coping strategies. To date, little is known about the relationship between burden and coping by spousal caregivers, particularly in the context of geriatric patients without dementia.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore the burden and coping strategies of caregiving spouses of geriatric patients without dementia and with a hospitalization within the last year. To help explore this population, a typology is presented that has been based on reported perceptions of home care burden and individual coping strategies. Furthermore, a case study is presented for each type of spousal caregiver.

Methods: The study used a concurrent mixed method design with a sample of nine spousal caregivers (mean age: 78.9 years). Four women and five men were recruited in an acute hospital setting during the TIGER study. Quantitative data were collected using a self-questionnaire and qualitative data were gathered through nine problem-centered interviews with spousal caregivers. The latter were subsequently analyzed utilizing the structured content analysis method. The data were then summarized to nine individual cases. Finally, the results were clustered using the empirically grounded construction of types and typologies. Each type of spousal caregiver is presented by a case study.

Results: Three types of caregiving spouses were identified: "The Caring Partner", "The Worried Manager" and "The Desperate Overburdened". These types differ primarily in the level of subjective burden and caregiving stress, the coping strategies, the motivation for caregiving, and expressed emotions.

Conclusions: The development of this new typology of caregiving spouses could help health care professionals better understand caregiving arrangements and thus provide more targeted advice.

Trial registration: The TIGER study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03513159 . Registered on April 17, 2018.

Keywords: Burden; Caregiver; Coping; Partner; Typology.

Conflict of interest statement

T.G., C.S. and S.E. declare no conflict of interest. E.F. is an Associate Editor for BMC Geriatrics.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart recruited caregivers
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Description of the exploratory design
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Typology of caregiving spouses by caregiver burden and the coping dimension. The vertical axis shows the extent of experienced burden and stress. A curved arrow-symbol in the graphic growing bigger upwards indicates the level of burden too. In the horizontal axis the respective coping dimensions are plotted. The big green dot represents the prototypical case of coping-type ‘Diverting’, the big yellow dot the prototypical case of coping-type ‘Seeking attention and care’ and the big red dot the prototypical case of coping-type ‘Negative emotional’. One always has to keep in mind also in the prototypes of our participants parts of the other two coping dimensions might also be present, but to a much lesser extent. The smaller dots symbolize mixed forms of coping strategies, whereby the colour indicates the predominant coping dimension

References

    1. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit . Zahlen und Fakten zur Pflegeversicherung. 2020.
    1. Robert Koch-Institut . Pflegende Angehörige – Deutschlands größter Pflegedienst. 2016.
    1. Hielscher V, Kirchen-Peters S, Nock L. Pflege in den eigenen vier Wänden: Zeitaufwand und Kosten : Pflegebedürftige und ihre Angehörigen geben Auskunft. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung; 2017.
    1. Roche V. The hidden patient: addressing the caregiver. Am J Med Sci. 2009;337:199–204. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31818b114d.
    1. Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. Caregiver burden: a clinical review. JAMA. 2014;311:1052–1060. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.304.
    1. Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2003;18:250–267. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250.
    1. Schulz R, Beach SR, Czaja SJ, Martire LM, Monin JK. Family caregiving for older adults. Annu Rev Psychol. 2020;71:635–659. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050754.
    1. Zarit SH, Todd PA, Zarit JM. Subjective burden of husbands and wives as caregivers: a longitudinal study. Gerontologist. 1986;26:260–266. doi: 10.1093/geront/26.3.260.
    1. Bonin-Guillaume S, Durand A-C, Yahi F, Curiel-Berruyer M, Lacroix O, Cretel E, et al. Predictive factors for early unplanned rehospitalization of older adults after an ED visit: role of the caregiver burden. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27:883–891. doi: 10.1007/s40520-015-0347-y.
    1. Del-Pino-Casado R, Frías-Osuna A, Palomino-Moral PA, Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL. Coping and subjective burden in caregivers of older relatives: a quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67:2311–2322. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05725.x.
    1. Perrig-Chiello P, Hutchison S. Family caregivers of elderly persons. GeroPsych. 2010;23:195–206. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000025.
    1. Savundranayagam MY, Montgomery RJV, Kosloski K. A dimensional analysis of caregiver burden among spouses and adult children. Gerontologist. 2011;51:321–331. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq102.
    1. Cohen CA, Colantonio A, Vernich L. Positive aspects of caregiving: rounding out the caregiver experience. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;17:184–188. doi: 10.1002/gps.561.
    1. Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Associations of caregiver stressors and uplifts with subjective well-being and depressive mood: a meta-analytic comparison. Aging Ment Health. 2004;8:438–449. doi: 10.1080/13607860410001725036.
    1. Gräßel E, Adabbo R. Perceived burden of informal caregivers of a chronically ill older family member. GeroPsych. 2011;24:143–154. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000042.
    1. Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Spouses, adult children, and children-in-law as caregivers of older adults: a meta-analytic comparison. Psychol Aging. 2011;26:1–14. doi: 10.1037/a0021863.
    1. Peacock S, Sethi B, Williams A, Duggleby W, Bayly M, Swindle J, et al. Older adult spouses with multiple chronic conditions: challenges, rewards, and coping strategies. Can J Aging. 2017;36:209–222. doi: 10.1017/s0714980817000095.
    1. Aloweni F, Doshi K, Fook-Chong S, Malhotra R, Østbye T. The types of caregiving reactions experienced by the older spouse caregivers. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:4538–4548. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15044.
    1. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. 11. New York: Springer; 1984.
    1. Heim E, Valach L. Berner Bewältigungsformen BEFO-ein instrument zur Selbst- und Fremdbewertung der Krankheitsverarbeitung. [the Bern coping forms BEFO--an instrument for self- and observer rating of coping with illness] Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 1996;35:XXXI–LI.
    1. Heim E, Augustiny K, Blaser A, Schaffner L. Berner Bewältigungsformen: Handbuch. 1. Bern, Göttingen, Toronto: Verlag Hans Huber; 1991.
    1. Hackl M, Holzner B, Günther V, Saltuari L. Pflege von Schlaganfallpatienten durch Angehörige--soziale Unterstützung und Bewältigungsstrategien. [care of stroke patients by relatives--social support and coping strategies] Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1997;122:669–675. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1047672.
    1. Hessel A, Heim E, Geyer M, Brähler E. Krankheitsbewältigung in einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsstichprobe. Situative, soziodemographische und soziale Einflussfaktoren. [illness-coping in a population-based representative sample. Situational, sociodemographic and social influences] Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2000;50:311–321. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-9093.
    1. Gunzelmann T, Hessel A, Geyer M, Brähler E. Formen der Krankheitsbewältigung bei älteren menschen - differentielle Effekte von Kontrollerleben, subjektiver Morbidität, sozialer Unterstützung und sozio-demographischen Variablen. [coping with disease in the elderly - the effect of perceived control, subjective morbidity, social support and socio-demographic variables] Z Gerontol Geriatr. 1999;32:238–245. doi: 10.1007/s003910050112.
    1. Lin I-F, Wu H-S. Patterns of coping among family caregivers of frail older adults. Res Aging. 2014;36:603–624. doi: 10.1177/0164027513513271.
    1. Daley RT, O'Connor MK, Shirk SD, Beard RL. In this together' or 'Going it alone': spousal dyad approaches to Alzheimer's. J Aging Stud. 2017;40:57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2017.01.003.
    1. Davis LL, Chestnutt D, Molloy M, Deshefy-Longhi T, Shim B, Gilliss CL. Adapters, strugglers, and case managers: a typology of spouse caregivers. Qual Health Res. 2014;24:1492–1500. doi: 10.1177/1049732314548879.
    1. Kaplan L. A couplehood typology for spouses of institutionalized persons with Alzheimer's disease: perceptions of "we"-"I"*. Fam Relat. 2001;50:87–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00087.x.
    1. Roland KP, Chappell NL. Caregiver experiences across three neurodegenerative diseases: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Parkinson's with dementia. J Aging Health. 2019;31:256–279. doi: 10.1177/0898264317729980.
    1. Kelle U, Kluge S. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. 2. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss; 2010.
    1. Kluge S. Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies. Qualitative social research. Forum Qual Sozialforschung / Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2000. 10.17169/fqs-1.1.1124.
    1. Rimmele M, Wirth J, Britting S, Gehr T, Hermann M, van den Heuvel D, et al. Improvement of transitional care from hospital to home for older patients, the TIGER study: protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e037999. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037999.
    1. Schütze B. SGB XI - Soziale Pflegeversicherung: Textausgabe. 13. München: dtv; 2017.
    1. Fliege H, Rose M, Arck P, Walter OB, Kocalevent R-D, Weber C, et al. The perceived stress questionnaire (PSQ) reconsidered: validation and reference values from different clinical and healthy adult samples. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:78–88. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000151491.80178.78.
    1. Wiedemann G, Rayki O, Feinstein E, Hahlweg K. The family questionnaire: development and validation of a new self-report scale for assessing expressed emotion. Psychiatry Res. 2002;109:265–279. doi: 10.1016/s0165-1781(02)00023-9.
    1. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
    1. Witzel A. The problem-centered interview. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung / forum. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2000. 10.17169/fqs-1.1.1132.
    1. Dresing T, Pehl T, editors. Praxisbuch interview, Transkription & Analyse: Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende. 7. Marburg: Eigenverlag; 2017.
    1. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt; 2014. .
    1. Li H. Hospitalized elders and family caregivers: a typology of family worry. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:3–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01013.x.
    1. Gräßel E. Warum pflegen Angehörige?: Ein Pflegemodell für die häusliche Pflege im höheren Lebensalter. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie -Psychiatrie. 2000;13:85–94. doi: 10.1024//1011-6877.13.2.85.
    1. Monin JK, Levy B, Doyle M, Schulz R, Kershaw T. The impact of both spousal caregivers' and care recipients' health on relationship satisfaction in the caregiver health effects study. J Health Psychol. 2019;24:1744–1755. doi: 10.1177/1359105317699682.
    1. Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Jiao QG. A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2016;1:267–294. doi: 10.1177/1558689807299526.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa