[Effects of a One-Week Inpatient Health Programme for Family Caregivers and Persons in Need of Care (SVLFG Care Tandem) - A Quasi-Experimental Study].

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a one-week inpatient health programme for family carers together with the persons in need of care (care tandem) on the well-being of family carers. Acceptance and subjective benefits were also assessed. The intervention was funded by the Social Insurance for Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture (SVLFG).

Methodology: Central to the intervention are (1) the home care counselling before the seminar, (2) the one-week seminar in the setting of a rehabilitation clinic at a health resort, in particular with a care course, exercise and relaxation units and the use of local remedies, (3) the substitute care of the person in need of care in close proximity to the seminar location and (4) the low-threshold telephone aftercare by SVLFG specialists. In a controlled prospective panel study (IG n=35, VG n=67, allocation not randomised), well-being (WHO-5, range 0-100) was measured at several points in time (IG: 0, 1, 9, 17, 28 and 43 weeks after the start of the seminar; VG 0, 17, 28 and 43 weeks). Statistical analyses were performed using fixed-effects panel regression, controlling for time-varying covariates (period effects, external stress).

Results: In the IG (80% women, mean age 66.5 years), 69% of family carers showed evidence of clinically relevant depression at baseline. All care levels were represented among the people in need of care, predominantly 2 and 3, with medically diagnosed dementia in 37% of the cases. The VG was similarly structured. Under the condition of stable external stress, the initial effect was very clear (delta=+19 points). The effect then flattened out, but remained fairly stable at around 10 points above the initial level. Although the last measurement (43 weeks) was no longer statistically significantly higher, it was independent of the development of external stress. Acceptance and subjective benefit were very high.

Conclusions: The strength of the intervention is the dyadic approach. The intervention promotes well-being and is highly accepted. The design allows at least cautious causal conclusions. For the remaining limitations, larger case numbers and a randomised controlled trial would be necessary.