Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Two-level simple regression analysis of factors associated with caregiver burden of care

From: Time to move? Factors associated with burden of care among informal caregivers of cognitively impaired older people facing housing decisions: secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial

Independent variablesβ (95% CI)p-value
Characteristics of the caregiver
Age0.08 (−0.08, 0.25)0.31
Sex
 MenReference0.07
 Women4.01 (−0.35, 8.38) 
Civil status
 SingleReference0.15
 Married/common-law partner−4.49 (− 10.85, 1.86) 
 Separated/divorced−7.45 (− 16.6, 1.69) 
 Widower−11.39 (− 21.89, −0.89) 
Employment status
 At homeReference0.22
 Unemployed/ Job seeker10.74 (−3.26, 24.73) 
 Retired3.66 (−3.9, 11.23) 
 Employed0.65 (−6.96, 8.27) 
Education levela
 SecondaryReference0.02
 Primary0.13 (−6.72, 6.97) 
 College−6.14 (−10.44, −1.83) 
 University−0.55 (−5.64, 4.54) 
Total family incomea
 Less than 15,000Reference0.15
 15,000–29,9990 (−10.57, 10.58) 
 30,000–44,999−3.53 (− 14.46, 7.4) 
 45,000–59,999− 5.2 (− 15.68, 5.28) 
 60,000 and more−6.61 (− 16.76, 3.55) 
 Preferred to not answer−1.18 (− 12.21, 9.86) 
Caregiver’s preferred role in the decision-making process
 Passive roleReference 0.04
 Active role−5.64 (−10.93, −0.34) 
Caregiver’s housing preference for the cognitively impaired older person
 Public nursing homeReference0.05
 Stay at home7.27 (1.59, 12.95) 
 Caregiver’s home9.62 (1.49, 17.74) 
 Private nursing home7.94 (1.96, 13.92) 
 Other9.73 (−0.06, 19.53) 
Decision regretb
  (< 5)Reference< 0.001
  (≥5 to ≤25)5.68 (1.36, 10.01) 
  (≥30)10.97 (5.54, 16.41) 
Decisional conflictc0.13 (0.02, 0.24)0.02
Decisional conflict subscales
 Informed subscale0.05 (−0.03, 0.13)0.26
 Values clarity subscale0.09 (−0.01, 0.20)0.09
 Support subscale0.04 (−0.04, 0.13)0.30
 Uncertainty subscale0.14 (0.06, 0.23)0.001
 Effective decision subscale0.12 (0.02, 0.22)0.02
Time lapse (days) since the decision was madec−0.02 (−0.04, 0)0.02
The season when the housing decision had to be made
 WinterReference0.17
 Spring−2.1 (−7.49, 3.28) 
 Summer−6.06 (−11.53, −0.58) 
 Fall−1.76 (−6.99, 3.48) 
The season when the caregivers were entered the study
 WinterReference0.35
 Spring−3.75 (−8.86, 1.35) 
 Summer−4.65 (−11.52, 2.22) 
 Fall−5.03 (−12.04, 1.99) 
Characteristics of the cognitively impaired older person
Cognitively impaired older person’s housing preference, according to the caregivera
 Public nursing homeReference0.10
 Stay at home8.05 (1.08, 15.03) 
 Caregiver’s home14.27 (4.34, 24.19) 
 Private nursing home6.51 (−1.5, 14.51) 
 Other8.21 (−6.79, 23.22) 
 Does not apply11.15 (−0.08, 22.37) 
The actual health related housing decision made by the caregiver for the cognitively impaired older person
 Public nursing homeReference0.36
 Stay at home−1.33 (−7.58, 4.93) 
 Caregiver’s home5.67 (−5.33, 16.67) 
 Private nursing home2.92 (−2.12, 7.97) 
 Other4.09 (−1.65, 9.82) 
Characteristics of the relationship between the caregiver and cognitively impaired older person
Relationship type between caregiver and the cognitively impaired older persona
 Other family memberReference< 0.001
 Child10.21 (6.16, 14.25) 
 Friend or other7.06 (0.08, 14.04) 
 Spouse19.19 (13.72, 24.66) 
Caregiver’s perception of social support resources
Caregiver’s assumed role in the decision-making process
 Passive roleReference0.90
  Active role−0.3 (−4.74, 4.15) 
 Caregiver’s perception of the occurrence of a joint process in the decision-making (D-OPTION)d0.11 (0.01, 0.20)0.02
 Caregivers’ perceptions of healthcare professional’s SDM behaviors during the decision-making process (SDMQ-9)c0.02 (−0.05, 0.1)0.52
Caregiver’s home care team has received SDM training
  YesReference0.60
  No−2.04 (−10.27, 6.19) 
 Health and social services centre (HSSC) setting
  Urban/suburbanReference0.11
  Rural−6.69 (−15.08, 1.71) 
  1. D-OPTION Dyadic Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument, SDMQ-9 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, IP-SDM interprofessional shared decision making, HSSCs health and social services centres
  2. aModel not assuming equal variance
  3. bDRS score < 5 = no regret, ≥5 to ≤25 = mild regret and ≥ 30 = moderate to strong regret [31]
  4. cfor one point increase
  5. dfor one point increase, score from 0 = decision-making not joint to 100 = decision-making joint