Skip to main content

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 variables

β (95% CI)

p-value

Characteristics of the caregiver

Age

0.08 (−0.08, 0.25)

0.31

Sex

 Men

Reference

0.07

 Women

4.01 (−0.35, 8.38)

 

Civil status

 Single

Reference

0.15

 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 home

Reference

0.22

 Unemployed/ Job seeker

10.74 (−3.26, 24.73)

 

 Retired

3.66 (−3.9, 11.23)

 

 Employed

0.65 (−6.96, 8.27)

 

Education levela

 Secondary

Reference

0.02

 Primary

0.13 (−6.72, 6.97)

 

 College

−6.14 (−10.44, −1.83)

 

 University

−0.55 (−5.64, 4.54)

 

Total family incomea

 Less than 15,000

Reference

0.15

 15,000–29,999

0 (−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 role

Reference

 

0.04

 Active role

−5.64 (−10.93, −0.34)

 

Caregiver’s housing preference for the cognitively impaired older person

 Public nursing home

Reference

0.05

 Stay at home

7.27 (1.59, 12.95)

 

 Caregiver’s home

9.62 (1.49, 17.74)

 

 Private nursing home

7.94 (1.96, 13.92)

 

 Other

9.73 (−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 conflictc

0.13 (0.02, 0.24)

0.02

Decisional conflict subscales

 Informed subscale

0.05 (−0.03, 0.13)

0.26

 Values clarity subscale

0.09 (−0.01, 0.20)

0.09

 Support subscale

0.04 (−0.04, 0.13)

0.30

 Uncertainty subscale

0.14 (0.06, 0.23)

0.001

 Effective decision subscale

0.12 (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

 Winter

Reference

0.17

 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

 Winter

Reference

0.35

 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 home

Reference

0.10

 Stay at home

8.05 (1.08, 15.03)

 

 Caregiver’s home

14.27 (4.34, 24.19)

 

 Private nursing home

6.51 (−1.5, 14.51)

 

 Other

8.21 (−6.79, 23.22)

 

 Does not apply

11.15 (−0.08, 22.37)

 

The actual health related housing decision made by the caregiver for the cognitively impaired older person

 Public nursing home

Reference

0.36

 Stay at home

−1.33 (−7.58, 4.93)

 

 Caregiver’s home

5.67 (−5.33, 16.67)

 

 Private nursing home

2.92 (−2.12, 7.97)

 

 Other

4.09 (−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 member

Reference

< 0.001

 Child

10.21 (6.16, 14.25)

 

 Friend or other

7.06 (0.08, 14.04)

 

 Spouse

19.19 (13.72, 24.66)

 

Caregiver’s perception of social support resources

Caregiver’s assumed role in the decision-making process

 Passive role

Reference

0.90

  Active role

−0.3 (−4.74, 4.15)

 

 Caregiver’s perception of the occurrence of a joint process in the decision-making (D-OPTION)d

0.11 (0.01, 0.20)

0.02

 Caregivers’ perceptions of healthcare professional’s SDM behaviors during the decision-making process (SDMQ-9)c

0.02 (−0.05, 0.1)

0.52

Caregiver’s home care team has received SDM training

  Yes

Reference

0.60

  No

−2.04 (−10.27, 6.19)

 

 Health and social services centre (HSSC) setting

  Urban/suburban

Reference

0.11

  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