Search

The purposes of this study were to evaluate a federal and state-funded Family Caregiver Support Program (FCSP) and explore what types of caregiver support service are associated with what caregiver outcomes. Information was obtained on a sample of 164 caregivers' use of eleven different types of support service. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used to detect the differences between users and nonusers of caregiver support services. Six measures included were caregiving appraisal scale, caregiving burden, caregiving mastery, caregiving satisfaction, hour of care, and service satisfaction. Using consulting and education services is associated with lessening of subjective burden; using financial support services is associated with more beneficial caregiver appraisal, such as better caregiver mastery. The findings are practical and helpful for future caregiver service and program development and evaluation and policy making for supporting caregivers. In addition, the evaluation method demonstrated in the study provided a simple and moderately effective method for service agencies which would like to evaluate their family caregiver support services., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Effective screening programs should not merely detect presence of disease, but also lead to long-term benefit. We describe the rationale and design of the first randomized clinical trial to study the long-term effects of routine screening for hearing loss. We also describe the baseline characteristics of the randomized cohort., Methods: We randomized 2305 veterans age 50 years or older to a control arm without screening, or to screening with: physiologic testing (AudioScope), a self-administered questionnaire (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening version [HHIE-S]), or both tests. The primary outcome measure will be hearing aid use one year after screening. We will also study a number of secondary outcomes, including appointments made with and visits to an audiologist, cases of aidable hearing loss, hearing aids dispensed, self-rated communication ability, and hearing-related quality of life., Results: Baseline demographic and health status measures were evenly distributed across the screening arms. The percentage of patients who screened positive for hearing loss was 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6% for the AudioScope, HHIE-S, and combined screening arms, respectively., Implications: Long-term results are needed to gain insight into whether the AudioScope is associated with high rates of false negative screening, the HHIE-S is associated with high rates of false positive screening, or a combination of both. Identifying the best screening program will depend on determining which strategy leads to successful hearing aid use.