"What choice do we have?" Reactive and proactive decision-making for aging in place with dementia.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19140
Catherine L Auriemma, Maayra I Butt, Julia McMillan, Jasmine A Silvestri, Carolyn Chow, Melanie Bahti, Tamar Klaiman, Kristin Harkins, Jason Karlawish, Scott D Halpern
{"title":"\"What choice do we have?\" Reactive and proactive decision-making for aging in place with dementia.","authors":"Catherine L Auriemma, Maayra I Butt, Julia McMillan, Jasmine A Silvestri, Carolyn Chow, Melanie Bahti, Tamar Klaiman, Kristin Harkins, Jason Karlawish, Scott D Halpern","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Promoting options for aging in place (AIP) has broad appeal to policymakers and professionals providing services to persons living with dementia (PWD). However, the benefits or burdens of AIP likely vary among individuals and families. We sought to describe factors influencing decision-making to age in place versus seek a higher level of residential care for PWD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study was undertaken as part of a larger mixed-methods study utilizing semi-structured interviews with PWD, family care partners, and dementia clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation within subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We conducted 74 interviews among 14 PWD, 36 care partners, and 24 clinicians. Preferences for AIP were driven by (1) desire to preserve independence, (2) a sense that the \"best care\" is delivered by loved ones and in a familiar environment, (3) distrust and fear of care facilities, and (4) caregiver guilt. PWD and care partners frequently considered moving from home as a \"last resort\" and wanted to avoid planning for future care needs. Many decisions to move were reactive and triggered by patient safety events, physical dependency, or the loss of caregiver. Proactive decision-making was facilitated by (1) prior experience witnessing the challenges of caring for a person with advanced dementia in the home; and (2) having substantial financial resources such that participants could seek major home adaptations or avoid \"lower quality\" institutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Decisions regarding care setting for PWD frequently do not feel like a choice and are made under imperfect conditions. Programs using AIP as an outcome measure should recognize the various patient-centered and non-patient-centered factors that influence such choices, and interventions should be designed to promote more informed and equitable decision-making for care setting in dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560565/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Promoting options for aging in place (AIP) has broad appeal to policymakers and professionals providing services to persons living with dementia (PWD). However, the benefits or burdens of AIP likely vary among individuals and families. We sought to describe factors influencing decision-making to age in place versus seek a higher level of residential care for PWD.

Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken as part of a larger mixed-methods study utilizing semi-structured interviews with PWD, family care partners, and dementia clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation within subgroups.

Results: We conducted 74 interviews among 14 PWD, 36 care partners, and 24 clinicians. Preferences for AIP were driven by (1) desire to preserve independence, (2) a sense that the "best care" is delivered by loved ones and in a familiar environment, (3) distrust and fear of care facilities, and (4) caregiver guilt. PWD and care partners frequently considered moving from home as a "last resort" and wanted to avoid planning for future care needs. Many decisions to move were reactive and triggered by patient safety events, physical dependency, or the loss of caregiver. Proactive decision-making was facilitated by (1) prior experience witnessing the challenges of caring for a person with advanced dementia in the home; and (2) having substantial financial resources such that participants could seek major home adaptations or avoid "lower quality" institutions.

Conclusions: Decisions regarding care setting for PWD frequently do not feel like a choice and are made under imperfect conditions. Programs using AIP as an outcome measure should recognize the various patient-centered and non-patient-centered factors that influence such choices, and interventions should be designed to promote more informed and equitable decision-making for care setting in dementia.

"我们还有什么选择?痴呆症患者居家养老的反应性和前瞻性决策。
背景:对于政策制定者和为痴呆症患者(PWD)提供服务的专业人员来说,推广居家养老(AIP)方案具有广泛的吸引力。然而,居家养老的好处或负担可能因人和家庭而异。我们试图描述影响残疾人选择居家养老还是寻求更高级别的住宿护理决策的因素:作为一项大型混合方法研究的一部分,我们进行了一项定性研究,采用半结构化访谈的方式,访谈对象包括残疾人、家庭护理伙伴和痴呆症临床医生。采用定性内容分析和持续比较的方法对访谈记录进行分析。样本量根据分组内的主题饱和度确定:我们对 14 名残疾人、36 名护理伙伴和 24 名临床医生进行了 74 次访谈。偏好 AIP 的原因包括:(1)希望保持独立;(2)认为由亲人在熟悉的环境中提供 "最好的护理";(3)对护理机构的不信任和恐惧;(4)护理者的内疚感。残疾人和护理伙伴经常将搬离家视为 "最后的选择",并希望避免为未来的护理需求做计划。许多搬家决定都是被动做出的,是由病人安全事件、身体依赖性或失去照顾者引发的。积极主动的决策则得益于:(1)曾经目睹过在家中照顾晚期痴呆症患者所面临的挑战;(2)拥有雄厚的经济实力,因此参与者可以寻求对家庭进行重大改造,或避免入住 "低质量 "的养老机构:关于残疾人护理环境的决定往往不像是一种选择,而且是在不完美的条件下做出的。将 AIP 作为结果衡量标准的项目应认识到影响此类选择的各种以患者为中心和非以患者为中心的因素,并应设计干预措施,以促进在痴呆症护理环境方面做出更加知情和公平的决策。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
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