A Study of Caregiver Self-Efficacy and Caregiver Reaction of Elderly Caregivers

• Main Authors: CHIH, YING-HAN, 支映涵
• Other Authors: HUANG, CHIH-CHUNG
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2016
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/75456697079310007890

碩士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 社會政策與社會工作學系 === 104 === This study aims to understand the general situations of care self-efficacy and care reaction, and explore the relationship among demographic characteristics of family caregivers and the elderly, care self-efficacy, and care reaction.The main research method is quantitative method to collect data. A total of 150 family caregivers completed this study in Taichung City. This study also combined qualitative research by using in-depth interview, including 5 family caregivers. The findings of this study were as following: 1. Care Self-Efficacy Scale was used to measure the degree of care self-efficacies which comprising three dimensions: obtaining respite chance, control negative thoughts and respond interfering behaviors. All of the average scores of the care self-efficacies achieved 60% of the total score of each subscale. It meant that the degrees of the care self-efficacies of caregivers all achieved moderate level. 2. Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) was employed to measure family caregivers’ reactions and to assess four dimensions related to caregivers’ reaction, namely, caregivers’ daily life, value of care, family supports, and physical health. The average scores obtained from assessment scale and from subscales were calculated based on the percentages of questions contained in the scales. The results indicated that family caregivers’ daily life was under the most of negative influence, followed by their physical health. 3. Next, the researcher examined the influence on caregivers’ reaction imposed by three self-care efficacies, and then assessed four dimensions related to caregivers’ reactions. When respite was provided, a negative correlation was found between self-care efficacy and caregivers’ reaction, daily life, family support, and physical health. When negative thinking was under control, a negative correlation was found between self-care efficacy and caregivers’ reaction, daily life, family support, and physical health. When interference was responded, a negative correlation was found between self-care efficacy and caregivers’ reaction, daily life, family support, and physical health. 4. The researcher found a number of factors related to family caregivers’ self-care efficacy, such as the genders of elderly recipients of care, availability of family caregiver substitutes, perceived health status, comparison of perceived health status between now and a year ago, the kinship with the elderly recipients of care, and the interactions between caregivers and care recipients. 5. The author also found a number of factors related to caregivers’ reaction, such as the genders of elderly recipients of care, the genders of family caregivers, ages, years of care, employment, availability of family caregiver substitutes, perceived health status, comparison of perceived health status between now and a year ago, the kinship with the elderly recipients of care, and the interactions between caregivers and care recipients. 6. As far as caregivers’ reaction is concerned, several important predictors were found, such as years of care, respite, and response to interference. The model had 32.3% of explanatory power. Years of care, interactions, employment, and respite were important predictors for daily life. The model had 17.9% of explanatory power. Interactions and response to interference were important predictors for the value of care. The model had 19.3% of explanatory power. As for family support, interactions and respite were important predictors. The model had 16.4% of explanatory power. As to physical health, the perceived health status and the comparison of perceived health status between now and a year ago were important predictors. The model had 44.2% of explanatory power. Recommendations were made based on the research results, and for the reference regarding care-giving policy, practice, and further research. Moreover, recommendations were presented to policy makers and administrators for constructing family caregivers’ benefits and welfare systems.