↓ Skip to main content

Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0620-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silke F. Metzelthin, Ellen Verbakel, Marja Y. Veenstra, Job van Exel, Antonius W. Ambergen, Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen

Abstract

Our ageing society is putting tremendous strain on public health and welfare programs to meet the needs of ageing individuals. Promoting informal caregiving is one way for policymakers to reduce this burden. However, caregiving may be experienced as stressful and is associated with adverse health consequences. While quite a lot of research focuses on caregiving for community-dwelling older adults, little is known about informal care in institutionalised long-term care (ILTC). Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to compare characteristics of informal caregivers and care receivers and caregiver outcomes - at home and in ILTC; 2) to study the association between these characteristics and positive and negative caregiver outcomes; 3) to investigate the moderating effect of the setting (at home vs. ILTC) on these associations. A cross-sectional study was conducted using the TOPICS-MDS DataSet. A total of 5197 Dutch dyads were included. The average age of the care receivers and caregivers was respectively 80.7 years and 63.2 years. Several sociodemographic, health-related and caregiving-related characteristics of care receiver and caregiver and two caregiver outcomes (i.e., subjective burden and care-related quality of life) were included in the analyses. Caregivers in both settings experienced comparable levels of subjective burden. Caregivers at home had slightly lower care-related quality of life than caregivers in ILTC. Several care receiver characteristics (i.e., male sex, married/cohabiting, more morbidities/disability, and less self-perceived health/psychological wellbeing) and several caregiver characteristics (i.e., female sex, being younger, living together with the care receiver, more objective burden, less self-perceived health, and more support) were associated with an increase in burden and/or a decrease in care-related quality of life. Some of these associations were stronger for dyads at home compared to dyads in ILTC. Informal caregiving does not stop with admission to an ILTC facility. Both settings need an informal caregiving policy, which is (1) tailored to the individual characteristics of care receivers and caregivers; (2) pays attention to the identified risk groups; and (3) reduces the negative caregiver outcomes and emphasizes the positive outcomes at the same time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Social Sciences 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,255,698
of 13,560,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#666
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,036
of 275,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,560,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.