Elderly Who Care for Elderly: DoubleVulnerability and Quality of Life

Flesch, Letícia Decimo; Batistoni, Samila Sathler Tavares; Neri, Anita Liberalesso; Cachioni, Meire

doi:10.1590/1982-4327e3003

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Developmental Psychology • Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 30 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3003 copy

Elderly Who Care for Elderly: DoubleVulnerability and Quality of Life

Idosos que Cuidam de Idosos: Dupla Vulnerabilidade e Qualidade de Vida

Ancianos que Cuidan a los Ancianos: Doble Vulnerabilidad y Calidad de Vida

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Elderly caregivers of other elderly people suffer from double vulnerability because they must deal with demands for care and for their own health. The objective of this study was to identify the association between double vulnerability and quality of life of elderly caregivers. The 148 participants were evaluated in relation to socio-demographic variables, quality of life, health self-assessment, perceived burden, measures of physical health of the caregiver and physical and cognitive vulnerability of the elderly who is the target of care. The hierarchical multivariate analysis showed that the elderly caregivers with the highest risk of worse quality of life were those with three or more diseases, with medium or high burden and with a worse health evaluation compared to the past. Greater health weakness is expected over the course of ageing; therefore, to study elderly caregivers, the perception of changes in health is a more pertinent measure than just the assessment of immediate health.

Keywords:
caregivers; elderly; quality of life; vulnerability; gerontology

Variables	Conditions	N	%	M	SD
Gender	Male	34	23.0
Gender	Female	114	77.0
Age	60-64	43	29.0	69.8	7.1
	65-74	68	46.0
	>75	37	25.0
Relationship to the elderly care recipient (N = 148)	Partner	92	62.2	5.6	4.3
	Progenitor	41	27.7
	Father / mother-in-law	5	3.4
	Others	10	6.9
Time from onset of care (N = 145)	< 2 years	42	28.5	4.5	4.1
	2.0 - 4.9 years	52	36.0
	>5 years	51	35.5
Main health disorder of the elderly care recipient (N = 147)	Dementia	45	30.4
	Cerebrovascular disease	30	20.3
	Immobility	31	21.0
	Others	41	28.3
Single caregiver (N = 145)	Yes	74	51.0
Single caregiver (N = 145)	No	71	49.0
Paid caregiver (N = 147)	Yes	28	19.0
Paid caregiver (N = 147)	No	119	81.0
Paid caregiver status (N = 28)	Daytime caregiver	8	29.7
	Maid	12	44.5
	Nurse	6	3.7
	Weekend caregiver	1	22.1
Marital status (N = 147)	Married	118	80.3
	Single	14	9.5
	Widower	9	6.1
	Divorced	6	4.1
Monthly income in minimum wages (N = 148)	0-3	20	13.5	4.0	3.6
	3.1 to 5.0	43	29.0
	> 5.1	85	57.4
Years of schooling (N = 145)	0 to 4	87	60.0	5.6	4.2
	5 to 8	33	22.7
	> 9	25	17.4
Paid caregiver (N = 148)	Yes	21	14.2
Paid caregiver (N = 148)	No	127	85.8
Age of the elderly care recipient (N = 148)	60-69	20	13.5	81.2	9.8
	70-79	43	29.0
	> 80	85	57.4

Variables	Conditions	N	%	M	SD
Caregiver variables
Total quality of life	< 40	50	33.8	42.8	8.8
	41-47	50	33.8
	> 48	48	32.4
Number of diseases	0	31	21.0	1.9	1.5
	1-2	69	46.6
	>3	48	2.4
Number of symptoms	0	31	21.0	1.9	1.6
	1-2	75	50.7
	>3	42	28.4
Fragility	Robust	28	19.9
	Pre-frail	68	46.0
	Frail	52	35.1
Current health self-assessment	Terrible / bad	8	54.1
	Regular	66	44.6
	Good / highly	74	50.0
Health self-assessment compared to the past	Worse	54	36.5
	Equal	71	48.0
	Better	23	15.5
Health self-assessment compared to the others a	Worse	15	10.8
	Equal	39	28.1
	Better	85	61.2
Total Caregiver burden	<19	50	33.8	26.1	13.5
	20-27	48	32.4
	>28	50	33.8
Elderly care recipient variables
No. of BADLs and IADLs that the elderly care recipient is dependent	0-6	38	25.7
	7-12	61	41.2
	13	49	33.1
	None / questionable	66	44.6
CDR	Mild / moderate	36	24.3
CDR	Serious	46	31.1

Variable	Categories	p	O.R.*	CI 95% O.R.*
Number of diseases	0 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	1-2	0.067	2.12	0.95 - 4.73
	≥3	0.001	4.30	1.80 - 10.28
Number of symptoms	0 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	1-2	0.381	1.42	0.65 - 3.09
	≥3	0.002	3.97	1.63 - 9.66
Level of fragility	Robust (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	Pre-frail	0.251	1.62	0.71 - 3.69
	Frail	0.003	3.78	1.57 - 9.08
Physical functionality of the elderly care recipient	0-6 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	7-12	0.016	2.56	1.19 - 5.51
	13	0.011	2.84	1.27 - 6.32
Cognitive functionality of the elderly care recipient	0-0.5 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	1-2	0.054	2.10	0.99 - 4.48
	3	0.016	2.38	1.18 - 4.83
Total Burden	≤ 19 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	20-27	0.010	2.69	1.26 - 5.72
	≥ 28	< 0.001	7.03	3.18 - 15.50
Subjective health assessment	Good / Very Good (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	Regular	0.005	2.45	1.31 - 4.59
	Bad / Very bad	0.003	25.99	2.96 - 228.51
Subjective health assessment compared to the past	Better (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	Equal	0.531	1.32	0.55 - 3.18
	Worse	0.002	4.35	1.71 - 11.09
Subjective health assessment compared to the others^a	Better (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	Equal	0.014	2.46	1.20 - 5.01
	Worse	0.010	4.11	1.40 - 12.05

Selected Variables	Categories	p	O.R.*	IC 95% O.R.*
Number of diseases	0 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	1-2	0.102	2.10	0.86 - 5.09
	≥3	0.003	4.67	1.69 - 12.89
Total burden	≤ 19 (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	20-27	0.027	2.60	1.12 - 6.07
	≥ 28	< 0.001	6.65	2.72 - 16.26
Subjective health assessment compared to the past	Better (ref.)	-	1.00	-
	Equal	0.202	2.05	0.68 - 6.19
	Worse	0.002	5.92	1.88 - 18.60

Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia Av.Bandeirantes 3900 - Monte Alegre, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto - São Paulo - Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3315-3829 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: paideia@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence address: Letícia Decimo Flesch. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas. Rua Tessália Vieira de Carvalho, 126 - Cidade Universitária, Campinas-SP, Brazil. CEP. 13.081-970. E-mail: leticiadecimo@gmail.com