Dataset Information

Exploring social capital for family caregivers of patients with chronic organ failure: study protocol for a concept mapping study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Many family caregivers experience significant burdens, especially those who take care of patients with chronic organ failure. Although the social welfare system offers some material assistance, a more sustainable approach to supporting caregivers is warranted. This study aims to explore the social capital (ie, the internal strengths of a community that facilitate different social roles) available for these family caregivers.

Methods and analysis

A participatory design based on Trochim's concept mapping framework will be used in this study. A total of 119 participants, including patients, family caregivers, professionals and other community members, will be recruited from the community. The study will be divided into three phases. In Phase I, qualitative methods will be used to prepare and generate statements. Participants will be asked to share their views on social capital for family caregivers through interviews. In Phase II, quantitative methods will be used to arrange these statements into a concept map, and participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire to prioritise the statements. Statistical methods will be used to create a map based on the responses. In Phase III, the concept map will be used to formulate action plans. The findings will be presented to the public to produce recommendations for social policy.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by The Chinese University of Hong Kong Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (Reference No.: SBRE-20-714). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. This study will reveal which forms of social capital can be mobilised to support family caregivers of patients with chronic organ failure. Recommendations on policies to improve the caregiving experience, strengthen social capital and enhance social care will be produced. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences and journals, as well as local media to create a greater social impact.

Trial registration number

ChiCTR2100044171.

SUBMITTER: Ng MSN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies have clarified that family socioeconomic status (SES) is positively associated with health. However, the mechanism of family SES on health needs to be further investigated from a social epidemiological perspective. This study aims to analyze the relationships among family SES, family social capital, and adult general health and tests whether gender-based differences exist in the relationship between family social capital and general health.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from 4187 representative households in six Chinese provinces. Family SES was conceptualized based on household income, family education, and family occupational status. Family social capital was measured by using family cohesion and health-related family support. General health was assessed by using five general health perception items of the Health Survey Short Form. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to examine the relationships among family SES, family social capital, and general health, and a linear regression model was used to test gender-based differences.ResultsThe SEM showed that the direct effects of family SES, family cohesion, and health-related family support on health were 0.08 (P?<?0.001), 0.17 (P?<?0.001), and 0.10 (P?<?0.001), respectively. Family SES had indirect effect (??=?0.05, P?<?0.01) on general health via health-related family support. The total effect of family social capital (??=?0.27, P?<?0.001) on general health was greater than that of family SES (??=?0.13, P?<?0.001). Besides, the regression showed that the effect of health-related family support on general health was greater for women (??=?0.13, P?<?0.001) than men (??=?0.04, P?>?0.05).ConclusionsThe results provide strong support for the positive association between family SES, family social capital, and adult health. Family intervention programs should focus on establishing a harmonious family relationship to mobilize family support, particularly for the families with low cohesion and low SES.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A little-studied issue in the provision of care at home by informal caregivers is the increase in older adult patients with chronic illness, and more specifically, multiple chronic conditions (MCC). We know little about the caregiving experience for this population, particularly as it is affected by social location, which refers to either a group's or individual's place/location in society at a given time, based on their intersecting demographics (age, gender, education, race, immigration status, geography, etc.). We have yet to fully comprehend the combined influence of these intersecting axes on caregivers' health and wellbeing, and attempt to do this by using an intersectionality approach in answering the following research question: How does social location influence the experience of family caregivers of older adults with MCC? METHODS:The data presented herein is a thematic analysis of a qualitative sub-set of a large two-province study conducted using a repeated-measures embedded mixed method design. A survey sub-set of 20 survey participants per province (n = 40 total) were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. In the first stage of data analysis, Charmaz's (2006) Constructivist Grounded Theory Method (CGTM) was used to develop initial codes, focused codes, categories and descriptive themes. In the second and the third stages of analysis, intersectionality was used to develop final analytical themes. RESULTS:The following four themes describe the overall study findings: (1) Caregiving Trajectory, where three caregiving phases were identified; (2) Work, Family, and Caregiving, where the impact of caregiving was discussed on other areas of caregivers' lives; (3) Personal and Structural Determinants of Caregiving, where caregiving sustainability and coping were deliberated, and; (4) Finding Meaning/Self in Caregiving, where meaning-making was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS:The intersectionality approach presented a number of axes of diversity as comparatively more important than others; these included gender, age, education, employment status, ethnicity, and degree of social connectedness. This can inform caregiver policy and programs to sustain health and well-being.

Project description:Despite the existence of formal professional support services, informal support (mainly family members) continues to be the main source of eldercare, especially for those who are dependent or disabled. Professionals on the primary health care are the ideal choice to educate, provide psychological support, and help to mobilize social resources available to the informal caregiver.Controversy remains concerning the efficiency of multiple interventions, taking a holistic approach to both the patient and caregiver, and optimum utilization of the available community resources. .For this reason our goal is to assess whether an intervention designed to improve the social support for caregivers effectively decreases caregivers burden and improves their quality of life.CONTROLled, multicentre, community intervention trial, with patients and their caregivers randomized to the intervention or control group according to their assigned Primary Health Care Team (PHCT).Primary Health Care network (9 PHCTs).Primary informal caregivers of patients receiving home health care from participating PHCTs.Required sample size is 282 caregivers (141 from PHCTs randomized to the intervention group and 141 from PHCTs randomized to the control group.a) PHCT professionals: standardized training to implement caregivers intervention. b) Caregivers: 1 individualized counselling session, 1 family session, and 4 educational group sessions conducted by participating PHCT professionals; in addition to usual home health care visits, periodic telephone follow-up contact and unlimited telephone support.Caregivers and dependent patients: usual home health care, consisting of bimonthly scheduled visits, follow-up as needed, and additional attention upon request.Data analysisDependent variables: Caregiver burden (short-form Zarit test), caregivers' social support (Medical Outcomes Study), and caregivers' reported quality of life (SF-12)INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: a) Caregiver: sociodemographic data, Goldberg Scale, Apgar family questionnaire, Holmes and Rahe Psychosocial Stress Scale, number of chronic diseases. b) Dependent patient: sociodemographic data, level of dependency (Barthel Index), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test).If the intervention intended to improve social and family support is effective in reducing the burden on primary informal caregivers of dependent patients, this model can be readily applied throughout usual PHCT clinical practice.Clinical trials registrar: NCT02065427.