Different views on collaboration between older persons, informal caregivers and care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Informal care features high on the policy agenda of many countries to deal with workforce shortages. As a consequence, care provision increasingly takes place in the care triad of care recipients, informal caregivers and care professionals. How collaboration between care partners takes shape depends on how the different partners perceive this collaboration. This paper aims to investigate the relative importance of the different aspects of collaboration from the perspectives of care recipients, informal caregivers and care professionals in the context of the care for older persons in The Netherlands. METHODS: Using Q-methodology, 32 participants ranked 28 statements that reflect different aspects of collaboration in the care triad and explained their ranking during a follow-up interview. Participants comprised 9 older persons, 10 informal caregivers and 13 care professionals. Data were analysed using by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in the rankings of the statements. Emerging patterns were interpreted and described as views on collaboration using aggregated rankings and qualitative data from the interviews. RESULTS: Five distinct views on collaboration were found: (1) Emphasizing warm collaboration, (2) trusting care professional's expertise, (3) open and compassionate care professionals, (4) responsive decision-making by autonomous care professionals and (5) prioritizing care recipient's and informal caregiver's interests. Care recipients and/or informal caregivers were associated with views 1, 3 and, 5, whereas care professionals were associated with all five views. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the importance of recognizing the potential diversity of views between and within different partner groups in care triads. Governmental and organizational policy makers, as well as healthcare professionals who aim to increase or support the involvement of informal caregivers, should take this heterogeneity into consideration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory board of older persons (care recipients and informal caregivers) was involved in the recruitment of the participants, the formulation of the statements and the reflection on the findings of the study and potential implications.

Informal care in times of a public health crisis: Objective burden, subjective burden and quality of life of caregivers in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the Netherlands, about one-third of the adult population provides unpaid care. Providing informal caregiving can be very straining in normal times, but the impact of a public health crisis on caregivers is largely unknown. This study focuses on the question of how caregiver burden changed following the COVID-19 pandemic, and what characteristics were related to these changes. We use self-reported data from a sample of 965 informal caregivers from the Netherlands 3 months into the pandemic to investigate how the objective burden (i.e. hours spent on caregiving) and the subjective burden had changed, and what their care-related quality of life (CarerQol) was. We found that on average the subjective burden had increased slightly (from 4.75 to 5.04 on a 0-10 scale). However, our analysis revealed that some caregivers were more affected than others. Most affected caregivers were women, and those with low income, better physical health, decreased psychological health, childcare responsibilities, longer duration of caregiving and those caring for someone with decreased physical and psychological health. On average, time spent on care remained the same (a median of 15 h per week), but certain groups of caregivers did experience a change, being those caring for people in an institution and for people with a better psychological health before the pandemic. Furthermore, caregivers experiencing changes in objective burden did not have the same characteristics as those experiencing changes in perceived burden and quality of life. This shows that the consequences of a public health crisis on caregivers cannot be captured by a focus on either objective or subjective burden measures or quality of life alone. Long-term care policies aiming to support caregivers to persevere during a future crisis should target caregivers at risk of increased subjective burden and a lower CarerQol, such as women, people with a low income and people with childcare responsibilities. Such policies should consider that reducing objective burden may not necessarily lead to a reduction in subjective burden for all caregivers.