Sustaining Chicago's Informal Caregivers: an Age-Friendly Approach

Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver-Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers-Exercising Together or Not at All?

Background and Objectives

Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were examined to better understand whether caregivers derived greater benefit from exercising with care recipients, or not exercising at all.

Research Design and Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify quantitative studies of dyadic exercise interventions in which caregivers enrolled with care recipients, and either coparticipated in exercise; or while their care recipients exercised independently, caregivers received a separate, nonexercise intervention or usual care (UC). To be included, studies had to measure physical or psychosocial outcomes for caregivers. Study quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist.

Results

Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. In six, the dyad exercised; in five, care recipients exercised while caregivers received a separate program, or UC. Results suggest that caregivers may improve both psychosocial and physical health when exercising together with care recipients. Caregivers who did not exercise but received a separate, nonexercise intervention, such as support, education, or respite, showed psychosocial benefits. Those who received UC were less likely to derive physical or psychosocial benefits. Included studies were fair to good quality with moderate to high risk of bias.

Discussion and Implications

Often examined secondarily, caregivers are overlooked for participation in interventions with care recipients. This analysis suggests that caregivers may benefit from dyadic interventions in which they either exercise together with their care recipients or receive a separate nonexercise intervention or respite.

Age-friendly cities and communities: a review and future directions

The unprecedented increase in the ageing population, coupled with urbanisation, has led to a vast number of research publications on age-friendly cities and communities (AFCC). However, the existing reviews on AFCC studies are not sufficiently up-to-date for AFCC researchers. This paper presents a thorough analysis of the annual publication trend, the contributions of authors and institutions from different countries, and the trending research themes in the AFCC research corpus through a systematic review of 98 publications. A contribution assessment formula and thematic analysis were used for the review. The results indicated a growing AFCC research interest in recent times. Researchers and institutions from the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom and Hong Kong made the highest contribution to the AFCC research corpus. The thematic analysis classified the AFCC research corpus into four main themes: conceptualisation; implementation and development; assessment; and challenges and opportunities. The themes indicate the current and future research patterns and issues to be considered in the development of AFCC and for interested researchers to make proposals for future research. Future directions are proposed, including suggestions on adopting new assessment methods and instruments, collaboration and cross-nation comparative research, considering older adults as place-makers and conducting a prior participatory analysis to maximise the participation of older adults.

Informal Caregiving in a Medically Underserved Community: Challenges, Construction of Meaning, and the Caregiver-Recipient Dyad

Little is known about informal caregivers' challenges in medically underserved communities. This qualitative study explores their perceptions/experiences of caregiving in a medically underserved community in Midwest United States. Two focus groups (n = 12) were conducted and themes were extracted and analyzed. Theme 1 included perceived barriers/unmet needs; most prevalent of which were lack of informational resources and support groups. A second unsolicited and unanticipated theme highlighted how caregivers constructed meaning through reappraising challenges to create enriching experiences for themselves, reinforcing their evolving dyadic relationship with care-recipient. Challenging and enriching aspects of caregiving coexisted and were rooted in caregiver-care-recipient dyad. Caregivers used meaning-making as a coping strategy for challenges. Prior research corroborates caregivers' challenges and meaning-making; this study contributes by delineating how both become interrelated. Policy makers can (a) alleviate challenges by increasing informational resources and support groups and (b) provide training to optimize caregivers' meaning-making, thus enhancing their positive experiences.

Sustaining Chicago's Informal Caregivers: an Age-Friendly Approach

The concept of age-friendliness has been globally coined by the World Health Organization (WHO) to give value to the physical, social, and environmental factors that can promote or hinder older residents' ability to age in place in cities. The initiative has been very successful in raising awareness among public health policy makers about the generic needs of older adults and urban features that promote active aging. However, the movement has been less focused on highlighting divergent needs of different older adult populations and their informal caregivers. The objective of this mixed method study is to analyze the ratings of 397 caregivers of urban age-friendly features relative to the ratings of 1737 noncaregivers collected as part of a baseline assessment of the age-friendliness of the city of Chicago. Using the approved WHO Vancouver Protocol, the research team also conducted six mixed caregiver/noncaregiver focus groups (n = 84) and three caregiver-only focus groups (n = 21). Survey findings show that informal caregivers rate all eight age-friendly domains with less satisfaction than do noncaregivers. Discussion in focus groups highlighted some of the reasons for these less favorable ratings and foregrounded the domains and themes that mattered most to caregivers. In conclusion, while our study revealed few systematic differences between caregiver and noncaregiver survey satisfaction ratings, caregivers report significantly poorer health than do noncaregivers. In addition, caregiver-only focus groups foregrounded "missing" priority issues specific to caregivers such as respite and the quality of training and flexibility of home help care. Results suggest that one productive next step for researchers would be to widen the usual range of factors considered essential for maintaining the well-being of informal caregivers of community-dwelling older adults. The age-friendly domains provide a starting point for this. Another would be to develop integrated support and improve service responsiveness to particular caregiver/care recipient dyad's physical, psychological, and social needs.