Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 429–442 | Cite as

Erfahrungen von pflegenden Angehörigen älterer Menschen in Europa bei der Inanspruchnahme von Unterstützungsleistungen

Ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projektes EUROFAMCARE
  • G. Lamura
  • E. Mnich
  • B. Wojszel
  • M. Nolan
  • B. Krevers
  • L. Mestheneos
  • H. Döhner
  • Für das EUROFAMCAREKonsortium*
BEITRAG ZUM THEMENSCHWERPUNKT

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag werden ausgewählte Ergebnisse der EUROFAMCARE-Studie zur Nutzung und Erreichbarkeit unterstützender Angebote für pflegende Angehörige präsentiert. Die Untersuchung wurde in sechs europäischen Ländern (Deutschland, Griechenland, Italien, Polen, Schweden und Großbritannien), die unterschiedliche Typen von Wohlfahrtsstaaten repräsentieren, durchgeführt. Mit Hilfe eines gemeinsam entwickelten Erhebungsinstrumentes und gemeinsamer Rekrutierungsstrategien wurden in allen sechs Ländern jeweils rund 1000 pflegende Angehörige älterer Menschen persönlich interviewt. Die dargestellten Ergebnisse zeigen die unterschiedliche Nutzung von Diensten/Angeboten und die Verfügbarkeit von finanziellen Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten in den verschiedenen Ländern. Weiter werden die Erfahrungen der pflegenden Angehörigen, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Kosten von Unterstützungsleistungen und die größten Hilfen bzw. Hindernisse bei der Inanspruchnahme, dargestellt. Schließlich werden die Gründe für eine Nichtinanspruchnahme bestimmter Unterstützungsleistungen, als auch für eine Aufgabe von Unterstützungsleistungen, die eigentlich noch benötigt werden, aufgezeigt. Insbesondere in den nordeuropäischen Ländern zeigt sich einerseits zwar eine höhere Verfügbarkeit von Diensten/Angeboten, die aber andererseits aufgrund ihrer geringe Flexibilität bei deren Anpassung an die Bedürfnisse der Pflegenden und ihrer betreuten Angehörigen z.T. nicht genutzt werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Pflegende Angehörige älterer Menschen Unterstützungsangebote Europäischer Vergleich 

The experience of family carers of older people in the use of support services in Europe: selected findings from the EUROFAMCARE project

Summary

This article presents selected findings of the EUROFAMCARE research project, reporting up-to-date information on the use and accessibility of support services for family carers of older people in six European countries representing different typologies of welfare systems (Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the UK). Data were collected by means of face-to-face interviews to national samples of about 1000 family carers per country (i.e. 6000 in total), based on a common recruitment and data collection protocol. The reported findings reveal the crossnational usage of different support services – subdivided for comparative reasons in the categories of socio-emotional support, information, respite care, training and assessment services – as well as of available care allowances. The analysis includes the perceived experience of carers in using them, in terms of costs sustained, factors affecting service accessibility – i.e. main obstacles and greatest helps in accessing them – as well as reasons for not using (needed) services or for stopping using (still needed) services. Cross-national differences are relevant, showing a greater availability in Northern European countries, where however higher refusal rates by potential users of available services are recorded, possibly in connection to their lack of flexibility and low customisation.

Key words

Family carers of older people support services Europcan comparison 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Alaszewski A, Billings J, Coxon K (2003) Integrated health and social care for older persons: theoretical and conceptual issues. Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury, EUGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alber J, Köhler U (2004) Health and care in an enlarged Europe. Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working ConditionsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aneshensel CS, Pearlin LI, Mullan JT, Zarit SU, Whitlach CJ (1995) Profiles in caregiving: the unexpected career. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Audit Commission (2004) Support for carers of older people, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banks P (2004) Policy framework for integrated care for older people. King's Fund/EHMA, London DublinGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bien B, Rothgang H, Lamura G, Triantafillou J, Mnich E, McKee K, Öberg B, Becker R, Rybaczuk M, Sielawa B, Timm A (2006) The one year follow-up study: preliminary results. In: EUROFAMCARE Consortium (ed) Services for Supporting Family Carers of Older Dependent People in Europe. The Trans-European Report. University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, pp 01–250 (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brereton L, Nolan M (2003) Seeking partnerships between family and professional carers: stroke as a case in point. In: Nolan M, Lundh U, Grant G, Keady J (eds) Partnerships in Family Care: understanding the caregiving career. OUP Press, Maidenhead, pp 50–68Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brody EM (1995) Prospects for family caregiving. In: Kane RA, Penrod JD (eds) Family Caregiving in an Ageing Society. Policy Perspective. Family Caregiver Applications Series Volume 5. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cresson G (2003) Socio-cultural patterns in the families' role as health care agent. In: Phillips J (2003) The role of formal and family support in the care of older people on the family and the health system: a cost-raising or cost-reducing factor? Germany. Austrian Institute for Family Studies. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daatland SO, Herlofson K (2003) Norms and ideals about elder care. In: Lowenstein (ed) Old age and autonomy: the role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity. OASIS final repor. Brussels, pp 27–164Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Döhner H, Rothgang H (2006) Pflegebedürftigkeit. Zur Bedeutung der familialen Pflege für die Sicherung der Langzeitpflege. In: Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Schwerpunktheft 2. Altern und Gesundheit 49(6):583–594Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    EUROFAMCARE Consortium (ed) (2006) Services for supporting family carers of older people in Europe. The Trans-European Survey Report. University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flecker K (2005) Vielfalt und Lücken der Pflegeangebote – Möglichkeiten der Sozialpolitik. In: Egger De Campo M, Posch K (Hrsg) Strategien gegen soziale Ausgrenzung alter Menschen. Tagungsband. FH Joanneum, Graz, S 61–65Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillman F (2005) Migrants’ care work in private households. In: Pfau-Effinger B, Geissler B (eds) Care and social integration in European societies. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 93–114Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jani-le-Bris H (1993) Family care of dependent older people in the European Union. European Foundation, DublinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kröger Teppo (ed) (2003) Families, Work and Social Care in Europe. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamura G, Wojszel B, Mnich E, Krevers B, Mckee K, Mestheneos E (2006) Experiences and preferences of family carers in the use of care and support services. In: EUROFAMCARE Consortium (ed) Services for Supporting Family Carers of Older Dependent People in Europe. The Trans-European Report. University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, pp 144–182 (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lonner WJ, Berry JW (1986) Field methods in cross-cultural research. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 85–110Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lowenstein A, Ogg J (eds) (2003) Old age and autonomy: the role of service systems and integrated family solidarity, final report. Centre for Research and Study of Aging, Haifa, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lyon D (2006) The organisation of care work in Italy: gender and migrant labour in the new economy. In: Passerini L, Lyon D, Capussotti E, Laliotou I (eds) Women migrants from East to West: gender, mobility and belonging in contemporary Europe (in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKee KJ, Philp I, Lamura G, Prouskas C, Öberg B, Krevers B et al (2003) The COPE Index – a first stage assessment of negative impact, positive value and quality of support of caregiving in informal carers of older people. Aging & Mental Health, 7:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mestheneos E, Triantafillou J (eds) (1993) Carers talking: interviews with family carers of older, dependent people in the European Union. European Foundation, DublinGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mestheneos L, Triantafillou J (2005) Supporting family carers of older people in Europe. The Pan-European Background Report. LIT-Verlag, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mnich E, Balducci C, Krevers B, McKee K, Prouskas C, Wojszel B (2006) Typology of caregiving situations in Europe: a cluster analysis approach. In: EUROFAMCARE Consortium (ed) Supporting services for family carers of older people in Europe: Trans-European Report of the 6-country EUROFAMCARE survey. Hamburg University, pp 127–143 (in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Motel-Klingebiel A, Tesch-Roemer C, von Kondratowitz H-J (2003) The role of family for quality of life in old age. A comparative perspective. In: Bengtson V, Lowenstein A (eds) Global aging and challenges to families, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, pp 327–354Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nies H (2004) A European research agenda on integrated care for older people (on behalf of the CARMEN Network). European Health Management Association, DublinGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nolan M, Mestheneos L (2006) Issues and challenges in carer support: a consideration of the literature. In: Doehner H, Kofahl C (eds) Supporting services for family carers of older peope in Europe: Trans-European Report of the 6-country EUROFAMCARE survey. Hamburg University, pp 15–40 (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Öberg B, Quattrini S, Brown J, Lüdecke D, Prouskas C, Synak B (2006) Sampling, recruitment and representativeness. In: EUROFAMCARE Consortium (ed) Supporting services for family carers of older people in Europe: the Trans-European Survey Report. Hamburg University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, pp 64–99 (in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearlin LI, Harrington C, Powell-Lawton M, Montgomery RJV, Zarit SH (2001) An overview of the social and behavioural consequences of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging and Mental Health 5(Supple 1):S3–S6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Phillipson C, Bernard M, Phillips J, Ogg J (2000) The family and community life of older peopleGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Polverini F, Lamura G (2005) East to west: the migration of informal caregivers. Global Report on aging (AARP Global Aging Program), Fall pp 6–7Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salvage AV (1995) Who will care: future prospects for family care of older people in the European Union. European Union Foundation, DublinGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scottish Executive (2005) The future of unpaid care in Scotland. Headline report and recommendations. LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    von Kondratowitz H-J (2005) Die Beschäftigung von Migranten/innen in der Pflege. Z Gerontol Geriat 38(6) 417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Lamura
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Mnich
    • 3
  • B. Wojszel
    • 4
  • M. Nolan
    • 5
  • B. Krevers
    • 6
  • L. Mestheneos
    • 7
  • H. Döhner
    • 8
  • Für das EUROFAMCAREKonsortium*
  1. 1.INRCA, Department of Gerontological ResearchAnconaItaly
  2. 2.z. Z. Gastwissenschaftler beim Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Institut für Medizinsoziologie, Arbeitsschwerpunkt SozialgerontologieHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Institut für Medizinsoziologie, Arbeitsschwerpunkt SozialgerontologieHamburgGermany
  4. 4.The Medical University of Bialystok, Dept. of GeriatricsBialystokPoland
  5. 5.University of Sheffield, Northern General Hospital SISA, Samuel Fox HouseSheffield S5 7AUUK
  6. 6.Linköping University, Department of Health and SocietyLinköpingSweden
  7. 7.Sextant Group/50+HellasAthensGreece
  8. 8.Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Institut für Medizinsoziologie, Arbeitsschwerpunkt SozialgerontologieHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations