Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic poses risks to the quality of life (QoL) of relatives of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This paper investigates relatives' QoL and associated risk and buffering factors before and during the pandemic. Method: Surveys were administered to three samples of relatives in the Netherlands in 2019 (N = 105) and during the first waves of COVID‐19 in June (N = 207) and October 2020 (N = 332). Associations between QoL and care burden, care competence, social support, and resilience, and changes over time were analysed using (logistic) regressions. Results: No significant changes in overall QoL nor its domains were found. Care burden was negatively associated with QoL and increased during the pandemic. Care competence was lower than in 2019. Competence, social support, and resilience were positively associated with QoL. Conclusions: Although relatives' QoL remained stable, the pandemic poses non‐negligible risks to their wellbeing. It is, therefore, crucial to provide relatives with adequate support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A child's disability, long-term illness, or mental ill-health is known to affect siblings' health, social life, school engagement, and quality of life. This article addresses a research gap by its focus on young sibling carers and the impact of providing care to a sibling. A cross-national survey study was conducted in 2018–2019 (Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK) to examine the incidence of adolescent sibling carers, the extent of care they provide, and their self-reported health, well-being, and school situation. The survey was completed by 7146 adolescents, aged 15–17, and 1444 of them provided care to family members with health-related conditions. Out of these, 286 were identified as Sibling Carers and 668 as Parent Carers, while 181 had both sibling(s) and parent(s) with health-related conditions, and thus were identified as Sibling–Parent Carers. Sibling Carers and Sibling–Parent Carers carried out higher levels of caring activities compared to Parent Carers. They reported both positive aspects of caring, such as increased maturity, and negative aspects, such as mental ill-health, impact on schooling and a lack of support. To reduce the negative aspects of a sibling carer role, it is important to recognise them and to implement early preventive measures and formal support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Netherlands, about one‐third of the adult population provides unpaid care. Providing informal caregiving can be very straining in normal times, but the impact of a public health crisis on caregivers is largely unknown. This study focuses on the question of how caregiver burden changed following the COVID‐19 pandemic, and what characteristics were related to these changes. We use self‐reported data from a sample of 965 informal caregivers from the Netherlands 3 months into the pandemic to investigate how the objective burden (i.e. hours spent on caregiving) and the subjective burden had changed, and what their care‐related quality of life (CarerQol) was. We found that on average the subjective burden had increased slightly (from 4.75 to 5.04 on a 0–10 scale). However, our analysis revealed that some caregivers were more affected than others. Most affected caregivers were women, and those with low income, better physical health, decreased psychological health, childcare responsibilities, longer duration of caregiving and those caring for someone with decreased physical and psychological health. On average, time spent on care remained the same (a median of 15 h per week), but certain groups of caregivers did experience a change, being those caring for people in an institution and for people with a better psychological health before the pandemic. Furthermore, caregivers experiencing changes in objective burden did not have the same characteristics as those experiencing changes in perceived burden and quality of life. This shows that the consequences of a public health crisis on caregivers cannot be captured by a focus on either objective or subjective burden measures or quality of life alone. Long‐term care policies aiming to support caregivers to persevere during a future crisis should target caregivers at risk of increased subjective burden and a lower CarerQol, such as women, people with a low income and people with childcare responsibilities. Such policies should consider that reducing objective burden may not necessarily lead to a reduction in subjective burden for all caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and insomnia have been independently related to poorer quality of life (QoL), productivity loss, and increased health care use, although most previous studies did not take the many possible comorbidities into account. Moreover, ADHD and insomnia often co-occur. Symptoms of ADHD and insomnia together may have even stronger negative effects than they do separately. We investigated the combined effects of symptoms of ADHD and insomnia, in addition to their independent effects, on QoL, productivity, and health care use, thereby controlling for a wide range of possible comorbidities and confounders. Methods: Data from the third wave of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 were used, involving N = 4618 from the general population. Both the inattention and the hyperactivity ADHD symptom dimensions were studied, assessed by the ASRS Screener. Results: Mental functioning and productivity were negatively associated with the co-occurrence of ADHD and insomnia symptoms, even after adjusting for comorbidity and confounders. The results show no indication of differences between inattention and hyperactivity. Poorer physical functioning and health care use were not directly influenced by the interaction between ADHD and insomnia. Conclusions: People with both ADHD and sleep problems have increased risk for poorer mental functioning and productivity loss. These results underscore the importance of screening for sleep problems when ADHD symptoms are present, and vice versa, and to target both disorders during treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combining work and care can be very challenging. If not adequately supported, carers' employment, well‐being and relationships may be at risk. Technologies can be potential solutions. We carried out a scoping review to find out what is already known about technologies used by working carers. The search included academic and grey literature published between January 2000 and June 2020. Sixteen relevant publications were analysed and discussed in the context of the broader discourse on work‐care reconciliation. Technologies discussed can be classified as: (a) web‐based technologies; (b) technologies for direct communication; (c) monitoring technologies; and (d) task‐sharing tools. Technologies can help to make work‐care reconciliation more manageable and alleviate psychosocial and emotional stress. General barriers to using technology include limited digital skills, depending on others to use technologies, privacy and data protection, cost, limited technological capabilities, and limited awareness regarding available technologies. Barriers specific to some technologies include work disruptions, limited perceived usefulness, and lacking time and energy to use technologies. More research into technologies that can address the needs of working carers and how they are able to use them at work is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]