van Exel Job, Morée Marjolein, Koopmanschap Marc, Goedheijt Trudy Schreuder, Brouwer Werner
Erasmus MC, Department of Health Policy & Management and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Policy. 2006 Oct;78(2-3):194-208. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.11.002. Epub 2005 Dec 6.
Recently, there has been increasing concern for the well-being of informal caregivers. Attention is directed at the development of respite care programs that provide support and relief by (temporarily) easing the burden for the caregiver. Yet, little is known about caregivers' needs, desires and use of respite care facilities. A survey was conducted among a population of informal caregivers, to investigate demand for and use of the four most common types of respite care, namely in-home respite care, day-care, short-stay and special holiday arrangements. The 273 caregivers that participated in this study were reasonably well informed about existing services, especially out-of-home services; least informed was a subgroup that needs but currently does not make use of respite. About one-third of caregivers made use of respite care. These caregivers experienced substantial burden and expected burden (60.7 on a 0-100 scale) to increase substantially in case respite care would no longer be available (+31 on a 0-100 scale). Caregivers and care recipients were generally satisfied with the respite care they receive. About half of the non-users indicated to need or desire respite care, in general those non-users experiencing a relatively high burden. The main impeding factor for use of respite care was care recipient resistance against respite (38%). A majority of carers (62%) anticipated that respite care could substantially decrease their subjective burden (-29 on a 0-100 scale). Mostly respite care facilities reach the caregivers most in need of support, but not all caregivers in need make use of respite. Improvements are possible in terms of information provision and focus on combined caregiver-care recipient needs and desires. More research is needed into the (cost-)effectiveness of respite care.
最近,人们对非正式照料者的福祉越来越关注。注意力集中在喘息服务项目的发展上,这些项目通过(暂时)减轻照料者的负担来提供支持和缓解。然而,对于照料者的需求、愿望以及对喘息服务设施的使用情况知之甚少。对一群非正式照料者进行了一项调查,以研究对四种最常见的喘息服务类型的需求和使用情况,即居家喘息服务、日托、短期住宿和特殊假日安排。参与本研究的273名照料者对现有服务,尤其是户外服务有一定了解;了解最少的是那些需要但目前未使用喘息服务的亚组。约三分之一的照料者使用了喘息服务。这些照料者经历了巨大的负担,并且预计如果不再有喘息服务,负担将大幅增加(从0 - 100分制的60.7分增加31分)。照料者和受照料者总体上对他们所接受的喘息服务感到满意。约一半的未使用者表示需要或渴望喘息服务,通常是那些负担相对较重的未使用者。使用喘息服务的主要阻碍因素是受照料者对喘息服务的抵触(38%)。大多数照料者(62%)预计喘息服务可以大幅减轻他们的主观负担(从0 - 100分制的-29分)。大多数喘息服务设施覆盖了最需要支持的照料者,但并非所有有需要的照料者都使用了喘息服务。在信息提供方面以及关注照料者 - 受照料者的综合需求和愿望方面还有改进的空间。需要对喘息服务的(成本)效益进行更多研究。