Problematizing Dominant Assumptions about Unpaid Support through Exploring Case Study Profiles of Older Home Care Clients

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
L. Funk, K. Kuryk, L. Spring, J. Keefe
{"title":"Problematizing Dominant Assumptions about Unpaid Support through Exploring Case Study Profiles of Older Home Care Clients","authors":"L. Funk,&nbsp;K. Kuryk,&nbsp;L. Spring,&nbsp;J. Keefe","doi":"10.1155/2024/3707796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite efforts to acknowledge diversity among unpaid caregivers, Canadian research, advocacy, practice, and policy tend to be based in and to reproduce dominant social and institutional expectations and assumptions about who provides unpaid support and why, and what this support looks like. The objective of thtudinal, qualitative research study. In that study, qualitative case study interviews were conducted with twelve home care clients, their identified family or friend caregiver, home care aide, case coordinator, and agency supervisor (129 interviews in total). Case study profiles compiled over time generated deeper information about the availability and capacity of informal sources of support for these clients, which prompted abductive analysis in relation to dominant assumptions typically made about caregivers in research, policy, and practice. Specifically, only one case (participant) had a caregiver whose profile closely matched dominant conceptualizations. In the remaining eleven cases, we found situations wherein: (a) caregivers grappled with physical or mental health challenges limiting their participation in care (sometimes meaning the client is themselves a caregiver, or the caregiver is also receiving home care services); (b) caregivers facing burnout sought to delimit their participation in care; (c) caregivers’ participation was limited by older adults’ reluctance to accept their help; (d) caregivers were largely unavailable, unreliable, or peripheral; or (e) client’s unpaid support networks were diffuse without a clearly central or identifiable “caregiver.” Findings are used to nuance and problematize widely held assumptions about caregivers, particularly their availability and capacity. Discussion highlights the need for research, policy, and programs related to unpaid caregiving to better reflect the lived realities of this support for older adults and often overlooked sources of diversity in caregiver circumstances and roles.</p>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/3707796","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite efforts to acknowledge diversity among unpaid caregivers, Canadian research, advocacy, practice, and policy tend to be based in and to reproduce dominant social and institutional expectations and assumptions about who provides unpaid support and why, and what this support looks like. The objective of thtudinal, qualitative research study. In that study, qualitative case study interviews were conducted with twelve home care clients, their identified family or friend caregiver, home care aide, case coordinator, and agency supervisor (129 interviews in total). Case study profiles compiled over time generated deeper information about the availability and capacity of informal sources of support for these clients, which prompted abductive analysis in relation to dominant assumptions typically made about caregivers in research, policy, and practice. Specifically, only one case (participant) had a caregiver whose profile closely matched dominant conceptualizations. In the remaining eleven cases, we found situations wherein: (a) caregivers grappled with physical or mental health challenges limiting their participation in care (sometimes meaning the client is themselves a caregiver, or the caregiver is also receiving home care services); (b) caregivers facing burnout sought to delimit their participation in care; (c) caregivers’ participation was limited by older adults’ reluctance to accept their help; (d) caregivers were largely unavailable, unreliable, or peripheral; or (e) client’s unpaid support networks were diffuse without a clearly central or identifiable “caregiver.” Findings are used to nuance and problematize widely held assumptions about caregivers, particularly their availability and capacity. Discussion highlights the need for research, policy, and programs related to unpaid caregiving to better reflect the lived realities of this support for older adults and often overlooked sources of diversity in caregiver circumstances and roles.

通过探索老年家庭护理客户的案例研究,对无偿支持的主流假设提出质疑
尽管加拿大努力承认无酬照护者的多样性,但研究、宣传、实践和政策往往基于并再现主流社会和机构对谁提供无酬支持、为什么以及这种支持是什么样子的期望和假设。这项研究的目标是进行定性研究。在这项研究中,我们对 12 名居家护理客户、他们确认的家人或朋友照顾者、居家护理助理、个案协调员和机构主管进行了定性个案研究访谈(共 129 次访谈)。随着时间的推移,案例研究的概况产生了关于这些客户的非正式支持来源的可用性和能力的更深层次的信息,这促使我们对研究、政策和实践中通常对照顾者的主流假设进行归纳分析。具体来说,只有一个案例(参与者)的照顾者的特征与主流概念非常吻合。在其余 11 个案例中,我们发现了以下情况(a) 照顾者面临身体或精神健康方面的挑战,这限制了他们参与照顾工作(有时意味着客户本身就是照顾者,或者照顾者也在接受家庭照顾服务);(b) 面临职业倦怠的照顾者试图限制他们参与照顾工作;(c) 老年人不愿意接受护理人员的帮助,从而限制了护理人员的参与;(d) 护理人员基本上没有时间、不可靠或处于边缘地位;或(e) 服务对象的无偿支持网络分散,没有一个明确的中心或可识别的 "护理人员"。"研究结果被用来细化和质疑关于照顾者的广泛假设,特别是他们的可用性和能力。讨论强调,与无偿护理相关的研究、政策和计划需要更好地反映出为老年人提供这种支持的生活现实,以及经常被忽视的护理人员环境和角色多样性的来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信