1 / 30

Robert A. Cummins 1 Anna L.D. Lau 2 Jacqui Woerner 1 1 Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University 2 Hong Kon

The wellbeing of caregivers. Robert A. Cummins 1 Anna L.D. Lau 2 Jacqui Woerner 1 1 Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University 2 Hong Kong Polytechnic University. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol.

yasuo
Download Presentation

Robert A. Cummins 1 Anna L.D. Lau 2 Jacqui Woerner 1 1 Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University 2 Hong Kon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The wellbeing of caregivers Robert A. Cummins1 Anna L.D. Lau2 Jacqui Woerner1 1Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University 2Hong Kong Polytechnic University http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol This manuscript contains notes below each slide. To view these notes, open in Powerpoint , go to ‘View’, and click on ‘Notes Page’

  2. Quality of Life Objective Conditions e.g. Poor Medical Health Subjective Perceptions e.g. Low perceived satisfaction with health Objective QOL Subjective Wellbeing

  3. What is subjective wellbeing? A normally positive state of mind that involves the whole life experience “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?”

  4. “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” • Standard of living • Health • Achieving in life • Relationships • Safety • Community connectedness • Future security How satisfied are you with your-----? ( Personal Wellbeing Index )

  5. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Surveys Geographically representative sample N = 2,000 Telephone interview #1: April 2001 ------------ #14: October 2005

  6. How satisfied are you with your --------? [Jones and Thurstone ,1955] 11-point, end-defined scale Completely Dissatisfied Completely Satisfied Mixed

  7. All data are converted to a standardized range from 0 - 100 Original 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Standardized

  8. 100 90 80 76.4 73.4 70 Subjective Wellbeing Mean = 74.9 60 50 SD = 0.8 40 30 20 10 0 Normative rangeusing survey mean scores as data (N=13) Very satisfied Very dissatisfied

  9. What causes subjective wellbeing to fall below the normal range? When the demands on the person greatly exceed their resources

  10. 80 77.3 78 76.7 76 Normative Subjective Wellbeing Range 73.4 74 72 Depression risk 70 68 Partner only The challenge of childrenvsPeople resources

  11. 76.7 73.4 80 77.3 76.9 78 76 Normative Subjective Wellbeing Range 74 72 Depression risk 70 68 Partner Partner and only children The challenge of childrenvsPeople resources

  12. 76.7 73.4 80 77.3 76.9 78 76 Normative Subjective Wellbeing Range 74 72 70.4 Depression risk 70 68 Sole Partner Partner parents and only children The challenge of childrenvsPeople resources

  13. Partner only 81 80 79.1 79.1 79 77.4 78 77.3 77.4 76.5 77 76.7 75.4 76 Normative Range 75 74 Subjective Wellbeing 73.4 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 <$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+ Household Income ($'000) The challenge of children vsFinancial resources

  14. Partner only 81 Partner & children 80.7 80 79.1 78.9 79.1 79 77.4 78 77.3 78.2 77.4 76.5 77 77.3 76.7 75.4 76 75.9 Normative Range 75 74 72.6 73.4 73 Subjective Wellbeing 72 71 70.3 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 <$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+ Household Income ($'000) The challenge of childrenvsFinancial resources

  15. Partner only Partner & children 81 Sole parent 80.7 80 79.1 78.9 79.1 79 77.4 78 77.3 78.2 77.4 76.5 77 77.3 76.7 76.3 75.4 76 75.9 Normative Range 75 74.5 74 72.6 73.4 Subjective Wellbeing 73 72 71 70.1 70.3 70 69 69.6 68 67 66 65 64.1 64 63 62 <$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+ Household Income ($'000) The challenge of childrenvsFinancial resources

  16. Survey 13Special topic: The wellbeing of home-based caregivers “Is there a person in your household who needs to be physically cared-for due to their age or disability?”

  17. 77 76.6 76 75.1 Normal range 75 74 Subjective Wellbeing 73.4 73 72 71.1 71 70 No Yes N=1696 N=230 “Is there a person in your household who needs to be physically cared-for due to their age or disability?”

  18. Demands > ResourcesNever married as caregivers

  19. Demands = Partner resourcesMarried caregivers

  20. 78 76.1 76.6 76 Normal range 74 73.4 72 Subjective Wellbeing Depression risk below 70 67.1 68 66 64 62 Partner + Elderly/Disabled Person Partner + Elderly/Disabled Person + child Demands defeat Partner resources

  21. Time resources

  22. 78 76.6 75.1 76 Normal Range 73.5 74 73.4 71.5 71.1 72 70 Subjective Wellbeing 68 66 64 60.9 62 60 No primary A child Elderly Disabled Yourself caregiver role (N=122) (N=48) (N=34) (N=32) (N=1,696) Primary caregivers to ---- Demands of the person being cared for

  23. Characteristics of self-primary caregivers.

  24. Person demands vs life domains

  25. Person demands vs life domains

  26. Person demands vs life domains

  27. 77 76.6 76 Normal Range 75 74 Subjective Wellbeing 73.4 73 72.7 72.6 72 71 70 Yes No (N=140) (N=60) “Are you the person who provides most of the care?”

  28. Conclusions • Caregiving is a potential threat to the wellbeing of ALL household members. • That threat needs to be matched by resources (personal or financial) • Caregivers particularly at risk are: • Caregivers of people who are elderly or disabled • Solo caregivers (either self or other) • Caregivers with low income

  29. References Andrews, F.M., & Withey, S.B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American's perceptions of life quality. Plenum Press, New York. Baxter, C., Cummins, R.A., & Polak, S. (1995). A longitudinal study of parental stress and support: The influence of child disability from diagnosis to leaving school. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42, 125-136. Baxter, C., Cummins, R.A., & Yiolitis, L. (2000). Parental stress attributed to disabled family members: A longitudinal study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25, 105-118. Bendo, A. A., & Feldman, H. (1974). A comparison of the self-concept of low-income women with and without husbands present. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 9(1), 53-85. Cummins, R.A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179-200. Cummins, R.A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307-334. Cummins, R.A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225-256. Cummins, R.A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52, 55-72. Cummins, R.A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133-158). Cummins, R.A. (2001). The subjective well-being of people caring for a severely disabled family member at home: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 26, 83-100. Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., Okerstrom, E., Woerner, J. & Tomyn, A.(2005). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 13.0 – “The Wellbeing of Australians – Caregiving at Home”. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 1 74156 014 4. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm

  30. References Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R. Pallant, J. Van Vugt, J, & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159-190. Cummins, R.A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). Singapore: National University of Singapore. Cummins, R.A., & Lau, A.L.D. (2004) The motivation to maintain subjective well-being : A homeostatic model. In H. Switzky (Ed.), International Review of Research on Mental Retardation: Personality and Motivational Systems in Mental Retardation, 28, (pp. 255-301). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cummins, R.A. & Lau, A.L.D. (in press). The relationship between health and subjective wellbeing. Social Policy Review. Cummins, R.A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69. Gove, W.R., & Geerken, M. (1977). Response bias in surveys of mental health: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1289-1317. Jones, L.V., & Thurstone, L.L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 39(1), 31-36. Lee, M.Y., Law, C.K., & Tam, K.K. (1999). Parenthood and life satisfaction: A comparison of single-and dual parent families in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 42, 139-163. Shields, M., & Wooden, M. (2003). Marriage, children and subjective well-being. Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, February 2003.

More Related