Informal care: choice or constraint?
Informal care: choice or constraint?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/scs.12441
复制
发表时间：
2018-03
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Oyebode J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Al-Janabi H;Carmichael F;Oyebode J
“选择”越来越成为社会政策的目标。然而，在多大程度上行使选择时，进入一个非正式的照顾角色是开放的辩论。在这项研究中，我们检查了进入照顾角色的选择和限制程度，以及选择和照顾者幸福感之间的关系。数据来源于1100份对英国一个城市进行的邮政调查的回复。应用关联的统计检验和多变量回归模型来研究与进入护理角色的选择相关的因素，以及进入护理角色的选择与护理人员的福祉的关联。我们发现，非正式护理通常被认为是一种自由选择，尽管在大多数情况下，选择也受到责任，财政或社会资源的限制。在进入护理中有自由选择的感觉与护理人员的福祉密切相关。研究结果与一种观点一致，即让个人在照顾角色中有更多选择可能是有益的。
‘Choice’ is increasingly pursued as a goal of social policy. However, the degree to which choice is exercised when entering an informal caring role is open to debate. In this study, we examined the degree of choice and constraint in entering a caring role, and the relationship between choice and carers’ well‐being. Data were derived from 1100 responses to a postal survey conducted in a British city. Statistical tests of association and multivariable regression modelling were applied to study the factors associated with choice in entering a caring role and the association that choice in entering a caring role had with carers’ well‐being. We found that informal care was generally perceived to be a free choice, albeit in most cases, a choice was also constrained by duty, financial or social resources. Having a sense of free choice in entering care was strongly and positively associated with the carer's well‐being. The study findings are consistent with a view that enabling individuals to have more choice in their caring roles may be beneficial.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Hoefman, Renske;Al-Janabi, Hareth;Ratcliffe, Julie
通讯作者：
Ratcliffe, Julie
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Hirst, M
通讯作者：
Hirst, M
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Arksey, Hilary;Glendinning, Caroline
通讯作者：
Glendinning, Caroline
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Adams, Valerie;Sharp, Rhonda
通讯作者：
Sharp, Rhonda
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Coast, Joanna;Flynn, Terry N.;Peters, Tim J.
通讯作者：
Peters, Tim J.