In recent years, Dutch authorities have attempted to shift from formal to informal care responsibilities to meet an increasing demand for care. There is a growing expectation that social and healthcare professionals will actively involve, support, and collaborate with partners, family members, and others who provide informal care. However, the practical implementation of such collaborations is not yet evident. In this qualitative study, 37 individual interviews and eight focus groups were conducted to explore the preferences of informal caregivers in the Netherlands regarding their collaboration with social and healthcare professionals. In recognition of the growing consensus that professionals should tailor their approach to caregivers’ individual circumstances, we adopted an intersectional approach to examine the relationship between caregivers’ social positions and preferences as well as the impact of systemic and power dynamics on these collaborations. The findings indicate that most of caregivers’ worries concerning collaborations are rooted in the organisational context of their interactions with professionals rather than the interactions themselves. Caregivers’ social positions do not necessarily lead to varying opinions regarding collaboration with professionals; however, caregivers do expect professionals to be aware of their social positions, as these positions shape the context within which informal care is provided and determine how easily caregivers can integrate care responsibilities into their lives. To enhance collaboration between caregivers and professionals in the short term, care organisations and social and healthcare educational programmes should encourage a professional mindset that recognises caregivers as equal partners in care. It is essential for professionals to acknowledge the caregiver’s role and devise strategies for arranging care together that build on the existing relationship between the caregiver and care recipient.
The need for care will increase in the coming years. Most people with a disability or old age receive support from an informal caregiver. Caring for a person with dementia can be difficult because of the BPSD (Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia). BPSD, including sleep disturbance, is an important factor for a higher care load. In this scoping review, we aim to investigate whether technology is available to support the informal caregiver, to lower the care burden, improve sleep quality, and therefore influence the reduction of social isolation of informal caregivers of people with dementia. A scoping review is performed following the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Mally and Rumrill et al., the scoping review includes scientific and other sources (unpublished literature, websites, reports, etc.). The findings of the scoping review shows that there are technology applications available to support the informal caregiver of a person with dementia. The technology applications mostly contribute to lower the care burden and/or improve sleep quality and therefore may contribute to reduce social isolation. The technology applications found target either the person with dementia, the informal caregiver, or both.
LINK
Background: Talking Mats is a framework developed to support communication with communication vulnerable people. Objective: The objective was twofold: to provide an overview of the objectives, target groups and settings for which Talking Mats has been used (Part 1), and an overview of empirical scientific knowledge on the use of Talking Mats (Part 2). Methods: In this scoping review scientific and grey literature was searched in PubMed, Cinahl, Psycinfo, Google, and Google Scholar. Articles that described characteristics of Talking Mats or its use were included. For Part 2, additional selection criteria were applied to focus on empirical scientific knowledge. Results: The search yielded 73 publications in Part 1, 12 of which were included in Part 2. Talking Mats was used for functional objectives (e.g. goal setting) and to improve communication and involvement. Part 2 showed that Talking Mats had positive influences on technical communication, effectiveness of conversations, and involvement and decision making in conversations. However, the level of research evidence is limited. Conclusions: Talking Mats can be used to support conversations between professionals and communication vulnerable people. More research is needed to study the views of people who are communication vulnerable and to study the effects of Talking Mats.
