↓ Skip to main content

For better or worse: Factors predicting outcomes of family care of older people over a one-year period. A six-country European study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
For better or worse: Factors predicting outcomes of family care of older people over a one-year period. A six-country European study
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0195294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Lüdecke, Barbara Bien, Kevin McKee, Barbro Krevers, Elizabeth Mestheneos, Mirko Di Rosa, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Christopher Kofahl

Abstract

Demographic change has led to an increase of older people in need of long-term care in nearly all European countries. Informal carers primarily provide the care and support needed by dependent people. The supply and willingness of individuals to act as carers are critical to sustain informal care resources as part of the home health care provision. This paper describes a longitudinal study of informal care in six European countries and reports analyses that determine those factors predicting the outcomes of family care over a one-year period. Analyses are based on data from the EUROFAMCARE project, a longitudinal survey study of family carers of older people with baseline data collection in 2004 and follow-up data collection a year later in six European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), N = 3,348. Descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics are reported. Binary logistic random-intercept regressions were computed, predicting the outcome of change of the care dyad's status at follow-up. Where care is provided by a more distant family member or by a friend or neighbour, the care-recipient is significantly more likely to be cared for by someone else (OR 1.62) or to be in residential care (OR 3.37) after one year. The same holds true if the care-recipient has memory problems with a dementia diagnosis (OR 1.79/OR 1.84). Higher dependency (OR 1.22) and behavioural problems (OR 1.76) in the care-recipient also lead to a change of care dyad status. Country of residence explained a relatively small amount of variance (8%) in whether a care-recipient was cared for by someone else after one year, but explained a substantial amount of variance (52%) in whether a care-recipient was in residential care. Particularly in Sweden, care-recipients are much more likely to be cared for by another family or professional carer or to be in residential care, whereas in Greece the status of the care dyad is much less likely to change. The majority of family carers continued to provide care to their respective older relatives over a one-year period, despite often high levels of functional, cognitive and behavioural problems in the care-recipient. Those family carers could benefit most from appropriate support. The carer/care-recipient relationship plays an important role in whether or not a family care dyad remains intact over a one-year period. The support of health and social care services should be particularly targeted toward those care dyads where there is no partner or spouse acting as carer, or no extended family network that might absorb the caring role when required. Distant relatives, friends or acquaintances who are acting as carers might need substantial intervention if their caregiving role is to be maintained.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 46 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Psychology 11 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 50 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,587,115
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#109,056
of 196,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,377
of 329,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,814
of 3,473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.