Mental health and well-being of unpaid caregivers: a cross-sectional survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Unpaid caregiving, care provided by family/friends, is a public health issue of increasing importance. COVID-19 worsened the mental health conditions of unpaid caregivers, increasing substance/drug use and early development of chronic disease. The impact of the intersections of race and ethnicity, sex, age and gender along with unpaid care work and caregivers' health and well-being is unknown. The aim of this study is to describe the inequities of caregiver well-being across the intersections of race and ethnicity, sex, age and gender using a cross-sectional survey design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are collaborating with unpaid caregivers and community organisations to recruit a non-probability sample of unpaid caregivers over 18 years of age (n=525). Recruitment will focus on a target sample of 305 South Asian, Chinese and Black people living in Canada, who represent 60% of the Canadian racial and ethnic populations. The following surveys will be combined into one survey: Participant Demographic Form, Caregiver Well-Being Index, interRAI Self-report of Carer Needs and the GENESIS (GENdEr and Sex DetermInantS of Cardiovascular Disease: From Bench to Beyond-Premature Acute Coronary Syndrome) PRAXY Questionnaire. Sample characteristics will be summarised using descriptive statistics. The scores from the Caregiver Well-Being Index will be dichotomised into fair/poor and good/excellent. A two-stage analytical strategy will be undertaken using logistic regression to model fair/poor well-being and good/excellent well-being according to the following axes of difference set a priori: sex, race and ethnicity, gender identity, age, gender relations, gender roles and institutionalised gender. The first stage of analysis will model the main effects of each factor and in the second stage of analysis, interaction terms will be added to each model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Toronto's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board granted approval on 9 August 2022 (protocol number: 42609). Knowledge will be disseminated in pamphlets/infographics/email listservs/newsletters and journal articles, conference presentation and public forums, social media and through the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This is registered in the Open Sciences Framework with a Registration DOI as follows: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PB9TD.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-Term Care in Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Canada's long-term care (LTC) sector, with residents of LTC and retirement homes accounting for 67% of all COVID-19-related deaths as of February 15, 2021. This study investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTC residents across Canada during the first six months of the pandemic, including how care changed for residents, using data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's LTC and acute care databases. The results suggest that LTC residents received less medical care, with fewer physician visits and hospital transfers compared with the same period in 2019. They also had less contact with family/friends compared with the same period in 2019, which was associated with higher levels of depression. In provinces where it could be measured, the number of LTC resident deaths from all causes was higher than pre-pandemic years during the peak of the first wave, even in jurisdictions with few COVID-19-related deaths in LTC.

Development and validation of a screener based on interRAI assessments to measure informal caregiver wellbeing in the community.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers are invaluable partners of the health care system. However, their caring responsibilities often affect their psychological wellbeing and ability to continue in their role. It is of paramount importance to easily identify caregivers that would benefit from immediate assistance. METHODS: In this nonexperimental cohort study, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 362 informal caregivers (mean age 64.1 years, SD ± 13.1) caring for persons with high care needs (mean age 78.6 years, SD ± 15.0). Caregivers were interviewed using an interRAI-based self-reported survey with 82 items covering characteristics of caregivers including key aspects of wellbeing. A factor analysis identified items in the caregiver survey dealing with subjective wellbeing that were compared against other wellbeing measures. A screener, called Caregiver Wellbeing Index (CWBI), consisting of four items with response scores ranging from 0 to 2 was created. The CWBI was validated in a follow-up study in which 1020 screeners were completed by informal caregivers of home care clients. Clinical assessments of the care recipients (n = 262) and information on long-term care home (LTCH) admission (n = 176) were linked to the screener dataset. The association between the CWBI scores and caregiver and care recipient characteristics were assessed using logistic regression models and chi-square tests. The reliability of CWBI was also measured. RESULTS: The CWBI scores ranging from zero to eight were split in four 'wellbeing' levels (excellent, good, fair, poor). In the validation study, fair/poor psychological wellbeing was strongly associated with caregiver reports of inability to continue in their role; conflict with family; or feelings of distress, anger, or depression (P < 0.0001). Caregivers caring for a care recipient that presented changes in behavior, cognition, and mood were more likely to present fair/poor wellbeing (P < 0.0001). Additionally, caregivers with high CWBI scores (poor wellbeing) were also more likely to provide care for someone who was admitted to a LTCH (OR 3.52, CI 1.32-9.34) after controlling for care recipient and caregiver characteristics. The Cronbach alpha value 0.89 indicated high reliability. CONCLUSION: The CWBI is a valid screener that can easily identify caregivers that might benefit from further assessment and interventions.

Adverse Events in Home Care: Identifying and Responding with interRAI Scales and Clinical Assessment Protocols.

Outcomes of adverse events in home care are varied and multifactorial. This study tested a framework combining two health measures to identify home care recipients at higher risk of long-term care placement or death within one year. Both measures come from the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC), a standardized comprehensive clinical assessment. Persons scoring high in the Method for Assigning Priority Levels (MAPLe) algorithm and Changes in Health, End-stage disease, Signs and Symptoms (CHESS) scale were at the greatest risk of placement or death and more than twice as likely to experience either outcome earlier than others. The target group was more likely to trigger mood, social relationship, and caregiver distress issues, suggesting mental health and psychosocial interventions might help in addition to medical care and/or personal support services. Home care agencies can use this framework to identify home care patients who may require a more intensive care coordinator approach.

A longitudinal study looking at and beyond care recipient health as a predictor of long term care home admission.

BACKGROUND: The unpaid care provided by informal caregivers allows care recipients to live longer in their homes, which often results in fewer unnecessary long term care home (LTCH) admissions. Although the relationship between care recipient's health characteristics and institutionalization is well known, the influence of caregiver distress and caregiving coresidence and relationship on this outcome is less clear. This study examines the association of care recipient care needs, caregiver distress and caregiving coresidence and relationship with care recipient long term care home admission. METHODS: A total of 94,957 resident assessment instruments-home care (RAI-HC), completed between April 01st 2013 and April 01st, 2014 as part of a clinical practice by 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) in Ontario, Canada, were linked to LTCH admissions within 1 year after completion of the first RAI-HC assessment. Cox models were used to examine whether care recipient health care needs, caregiver distress and caregiving characteristics such as coresidence and relationship were associated with LTCH admission. Age, marital status and gender of the care recipient were included as covariates in the model. RESULTS: Care recipient health care needs and age were the strongest predictors of LTCH admission followed by caregiver distress and caregiving coresidence and relationship. Care recipient marital status was not significant in the survival model. Interestingly, care recipients who were cared for by a coresiding adult child caregiver were less likely to be admitted to a LTCH than care recipients cared for by a spouse caregiver coresiding or not with care recipient. Hazard rates (HR) of admission for care recipients cared for by caregivers coresiding and with other type of relationship with care recipient were not significantly different than HR of care recipients cared for by coresiding child caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the influence of caregiver distress in LTCH admission and highlight the impact of caregiving relationship and coresidence on this outcome. Policy and decision makers should consider these findings when developing and evaluating interventions aiming to avoid LTCH admissions. Moreover, caregiving coresidence and relationship should be explored in future studies with similar aims, as this information has been neglected in past research.