Search

Informal caregiving constitutes the mainstay of a society's care supply. Motivations for caring and continuing to provide care are crucial to understanding the nature of caregiver experiences and their relationship with the person/people they support. This systematic review of qualitative evidence examines determinants of motivations and willingness to provide informal care. One hundred and five qualitative studies published before August 2019 and fitting the inclusion criteria were identified, 84 of them pertaining to cultural and societal motivations for caregiving. Grounded theory-based, thematic synthesis was conducted. Cultural and societal factors strongly underpinned motivations and willingness for informal caregiving. The main cultural motives for caregiving were cultural values and beliefs encompassing the ethnocultural context of the caregiving role, culture-specific norms, cultural and spiritual beliefs, illness beliefs and socialisation. Societal norms and perceived expectations, such as gendered roles, norms and expectations of caregiving, and perceptions of health and social care services further shaped caregiver motivations and willingness to provide care. These meta-synthesis findings contribute towards novel understandings about the cultural and societal aspects shaping informal care provision. These findings bear important implications for theory, research, policy and practice; all of which contributing to the issue of the sustainability of informal care from a 'macro' perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The provision of informal care presents a significant global challenge. To better understand how cultural factors underpin and shape motivations and willingness to provide informal care for adults, an in-depth qualitative synthesis was conducted. Six electronic databases and a wide range of additional sources were searched. Following meta-ethnographic guidelines, 37 qualitative studies were synthesised. Six main concepts were identified: cultural self-identity, which appeared as an overarching explanatory concept; cultural duty and obligations; cultural values; love and emotional attachments; repayment and reciprocity; and competing demands and roles. These concepts informed a model of cultural caregiving motivations, offering an inductive-based exploration of key cultural motivators and highlighting implications for theory development, future research, policy and practice. The model holds implications for the actual exchange of care. Caregiver motivations should not be taken for granted by healthcare or social care professionals involved in assessment and support planning, educational endeavours at a population level may support caregiving, and support should be sensitive to cultural caregiving motivations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informal caregivers are those providing care, which exceeds that which is typically provided, to a relative or friend with care needs. Informal caregiving constitutes the backbone of a society’s care supply and with ageing populations the need for informal care is growing. We know little as to why caregivers start caring and continue doing so, yet understanding of motivations and willingness to provide care is important if informal caregivers are to be supported. However, both motivations and willingness are inconsistently defined making it difficult to compare the empirical findings that do exist. Methods: This paper reviews and synthesises thinking about the theoretical constructs of motivations to provide care and willingness to perform informal care, and presents those in relation to existing theoretical and empirical literature. Results and Conclusions: Theoretical reflections based on various motivational frameworks and available empirical data are presented to illustrate that: caregiving motivations should be conceptualised as multifaceted and multiply determined; intrinsic and extrinsic motivations should not be treated as antagonistic and can occur simultaneously; the commonly applied model of extrinsic/intrinsic motivations is oversimplified and omits consideration of the diversity of caregiver motives; other motivational models can be discerned in the context of the empirical research; there are differences between motivations and willingness to provide care with the latter being more consequent to the motives; both should be considered dynamic in nature; and finally, that the two constructs may not inevitably lead to actual caregiver behaviour. The implications of these theoretical reflections for methodology and research as well as their relevance for practice and policy are indicated.

Background: Informal caregivers are those providing care, which exceeds that which is typically provided, to a relative or friend with care needs. Informal caregiving constitutes the backbone of a society's care supply and with ageing populations the need for informal care is growing. We know little as to why caregivers start caring and continue doing so, yet understanding of motivations and willingness to provide care is important if informal caregivers are to be supported. However, both motivations and willingness are inconsistently defined making it difficult to compare the empirical findings that do exist. Methods: This paper reviews and synthesises thinking about the theoretical constructs of motivations to provide care and willingness to perform informal care, and presents those in relation to existing theoretical and empirical literature. Results and Conclusions: Theoretical reflections based on various motivational frameworks and available empirical data are presented to illustrate that: caregiving motivations should be conceptualised as multifaceted and multiply determined; intrinsic and extrinsic motivations should not be treated as antagonistic and can occur simultaneously; the commonly applied model of extrinsic/intrinsic motivations is oversimplified and omits consideration of the diversity of caregiver motives; other motivational models can be discerned in the context of the empirical research; there are differences between motivations and willingness to provide care with the latter being more consequent to the motives; both should be considered dynamic in nature; and finally, that the two constructs may not inevitably lead to actual caregiver behaviour. The implications of these theoretical reflections for methodology and research as well as their relevance for practice and policy are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exerted tremendous effects on the residents of and caregivers at long-term care facilities (LTCF). The combination of a vulnerable, aged population, staffing shortages, and inadequate resources in LTCF will cause a great negative impact in these sectors. Addressing the caregiver's lack of interest in providing care for patients with COVID-19 is a great challenge for institutional managers. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the factors related to the willingness of personnel at LTCF to provide care to patients with COVID-19. This was a cross-sectional study in which personnel from 10 LTCF were recruited as participants through convenience sampling and completed structured questionnaires. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed and 385 valid questionnaires were recovered, posting a response rate of 77%. A statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. The results of the survey revealed that only 30% of the participants were willing to provide care to patients with COVID-19; 23% more of the participants were willing to provide such care if their institutions provided sufficient PPE. Regarding other conditions, 31.5% and 76% of the participants expressed that they would be willing to provide such care if their compensation were increased and working hours were reduced. In the univariate analysis, the willingness of participants with different characteristics (job categories, years of holding a professional certificate, job location type, monthly income, experience with caring for patients with confirmed COVID-19, and completion of training related to communicable disease control) varied significantly ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, in the logistic regression analysis, several demographic and professional characteristics (education level, job category, number of patients served daily, and monthly income) were significantly correlated with willingness to provide care to patients with COVID-19 ( p < 0.05). On the basis of these findings, the LTCF should securitize the associated factors of care wiliness in personnel to eliminate the difference of the willingness to provide care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.