|
| ||
|
|
||
Caregiver Behavior (caregiver + behavior)
Selected AbstractsRisk Factors for Potentially Harmful Informal Caregiver BehaviorJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 2 2005Scott R. Beach PhD Objectives: Caring for a sick or disabled relative has been linked to compromised caregiver health, and risk factors for negative caregiver outcomes have been studied extensively, but little attention has been given to care recipient and caregiver health as risk factors for potentially harmful behavior by informal caregivers. This article explores such risk factors. Design: Structured interviews from baseline assessment of the Family Relationships in Late Life Study. Setting: Three U.S. communities. Participants: Referred, volunteer sample of 265 caregiver/care recipient dyads. Caregivers were primarily responsible for care of an impaired, community-residing family member aged 60 and older and providing help with at least one activity of daily living (ADL) or two instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Measurements: Self-reported care recipient demographics, cognitive status, need for care, and self-rated health; self-reported caregiver demographics, cognitive status, amount of care provided, self-rated health, physical symptoms, and depression. Care recipient reports of potentially harmful caregiver behavior, including screaming and yelling, insulting or swearing, threatening to send to a nursing home, and withholding food, were the main outcome variable. Results: The following were significant risk factors for potentially harmful caregiver behavior: greater care recipient ADL/IADL needs (odds ratio (OR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03,1.22), spouse caregivers (vs others; OR=8.00, 95% CI=1.71,37.47), greater caregiver cognitive impairment (OR=1.20, 95% CI=1.04,1.38), more caregiver physical symptoms (OR=1.07, 95% CI=1.01,1.13), and caregivers at risk for clinical depression (OR=3.47, 95% CI=1.58,7.62). Conclusion: Potentially harmful caregiver behavior is more likely in spouse caregiving situations and when care recipients have greater needs for care and caregivers are more cognitively impaired, have more physical symptoms, and are at risk for clinical depression. This risk profile is similar to that for negative caregiver outcomes. [source] Child, Caregiver, and Temperament Contributions to Infant Joint AttentionINFANCY, Issue 4 2003Amy Vaughan Little is known about variables that may contribute to individual differences in infant joint attention, or the coordination of visual attention with a social partner. Therefore, this study examined the contributions of caregiver behavior and temperament to infant joint attention development between 9 and 12 months. Data were collected from 57 infants using a caregiver,infant paradigm, an infant,tester paradigm, and a parent report of infant temperament. Nine-month measures of caregiver scaffolding and infant initiating joint attention (IJA) with testers were significantly related to 12-month infant IJA with testers. A temperament measure of positive emotional reactivity was related to 9-month IJA, and a measure of negative emotional reactivity was related to 12-month IJA. Temperament and caregiver scaffolding measures, however, were not associated with the development of infant responding to joint attention. These results further the understanding of the multiple processes that contribute to joint attention development in infancy, and support the hypothesis that initiating and responding measures tap different aspects of joint attention development. [source] Risk Factors for Potentially Harmful Informal Caregiver BehaviorJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 2 2005Scott R. Beach PhD Objectives: Caring for a sick or disabled relative has been linked to compromised caregiver health, and risk factors for negative caregiver outcomes have been studied extensively, but little attention has been given to care recipient and caregiver health as risk factors for potentially harmful behavior by informal caregivers. This article explores such risk factors. Design: Structured interviews from baseline assessment of the Family Relationships in Late Life Study. Setting: Three U.S. communities. Participants: Referred, volunteer sample of 265 caregiver/care recipient dyads. Caregivers were primarily responsible for care of an impaired, community-residing family member aged 60 and older and providing help with at least one activity of daily living (ADL) or two instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Measurements: Self-reported care recipient demographics, cognitive status, need for care, and self-rated health; self-reported caregiver demographics, cognitive status, amount of care provided, self-rated health, physical symptoms, and depression. Care recipient reports of potentially harmful caregiver behavior, including screaming and yelling, insulting or swearing, threatening to send to a nursing home, and withholding food, were the main outcome variable. Results: The following were significant risk factors for potentially harmful caregiver behavior: greater care recipient ADL/IADL needs (odds ratio (OR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03,1.22), spouse caregivers (vs others; OR=8.00, 95% CI=1.71,37.47), greater caregiver cognitive impairment (OR=1.20, 95% CI=1.04,1.38), more caregiver physical symptoms (OR=1.07, 95% CI=1.01,1.13), and caregivers at risk for clinical depression (OR=3.47, 95% CI=1.58,7.62). Conclusion: Potentially harmful caregiver behavior is more likely in spouse caregiving situations and when care recipients have greater needs for care and caregivers are more cognitively impaired, have more physical symptoms, and are at risk for clinical depression. This risk profile is similar to that for negative caregiver outcomes. [source] Cocaine-Exposed Infant Behavior During Still-Face: Risk Factor AnalysesAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY, Issue 1 2009Marilyn W. Lewis PhD Prenatal cocaine exposure and the role of gender were evaluated using risk factor analyses to determine whether 6-month-old cocaine-exposed male infants demonstrated greater disruptions in infant-caregiver socioemotional interactions during a Still-Face test. Overall, non-cocaine-exposed infants spent more time looking at toys, compared with cocaine-exposed infants; nonexposed female infants spent more time scanning the environment, compared with nonexposed male infants. When caregiver behavior during the Still-Face was evaluated, differences emerged in amount of time the caregiver spent vocalizing to the infant. She vocalized more to a cocaine-exposed infant compared with a nonexposed one; she reduced vocalizing more during the test if the cocaine-exposed infant was female. An exposure by gender interaction emerged in the amount of change in caregiver vocalizations; however, the overarching hypothesis that male cocaine-exposed infants are at higher risk than nonexposed male, nonexposed female, and cocaine-exposed female infants was not supported. Because this interaction was evident in this cohort at 24 months, future research is needed to determine at what age an interaction begins to emerge in this cohort. [source] The Value of Vocalizing: Five-Month-Old Infants Associate Their Own Noncry Vocalizations With Responses From CaregiversCHILD DEVELOPMENT, Issue 3 2009Michael H. Goldstein The early noncry vocalizations of infants are salient social signals. Caregivers spontaneously respond to 30%,50% of these sounds, and their responsiveness to infants' prelinguistic noncry vocalizations facilitates the development of phonology and speech. Have infants learned that their vocalizations influence the behavior of social partners? If they have, infants should show an extinction burst in vocalizing when adults temporarily stop responding to infant vocalizations. Thirty-eight 5-month-olds were tested in the still-face paradigm with an unfamiliar adult. When the adult assumed a still face, infants showed an extinction burst. Thus, 5-month-olds have learned the social efficacy of their vocalizations on caregivers' behavior. Furthermore, the magnitude of 5-month infants' extinction bursts predicted their language comprehension at 13 months. [source] | ||||||||||