4.5 Article

The dyadic interaction of relationships and disability type on informal carer subjective well-being

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1535-1542

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0577-4

关键词

Informal carers; Subjective well-being; Depression; Stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Care-related factors have frequently been associated with elevated levels of distress and diminished subjective well-being. However, these variables have traditionally been considered independently. The objectives of this study were to explore the subjective well-being of informal carers in Australia and to specifically examine the effect of the dyadic interaction between the caring relationship and type of disability on the subjective well-being of informal carers. Informal carers (n = 4,096) completed the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and Depression and Stress Scales. Analysis of covariance was used to compare the subjective well-being of carers to the general population while controlling for socio-demographic factors. To examine the dyadic relationship, a multivariate analysis of covariance was employed. After socio-demographic variables were controlled, informal carers reported significantly lower PWI scores compared to the general population. The results of the multivariate analysis of covariance revealed a significant interaction between the caring relationship and the type of disability being managed on subjective well-being. No differences were found for symptoms of depression and stress. The findings of this study imply that the detrimental effect of caring on subjective well-being is magnified for carers who support a child with a mental illness or multiple types of disabilities. These carers displayed the lowest levels of subjective well-being, highlighting the dyadic effects of care-related variables. Consideration of these factors is essential to target effective intervention programs for those most at risk of diminished well-being.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据