“…Barber, 2010;Humphrey, 1997), but it does examine the latter two by considering psychological and social motivations for caring. Interestingly, the issue of reciprocity presented in Social Exchange Theory (Adams et al, 1976) was rarely mentioned by caregivers in this study, which is surprising given the prevalence of this motivation in existing literature (Zarzycki et al, 2022b). Contrary to Social Exchange Theory, the current data supports the importance of motivations other than reciprocity, that is, affection or perceived obligation.…”
The adoption of a caregiving role in the context of illness and disability is often taken for granted. This study explores caregivers’ motivations to provide care and how these relate to values, and to the challenges and gains of caregiving. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with caregivers and photographs were taken by caregivers to exemplify their caregiving experiences. This photo-elicitation method complemented the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis when applied to verbatim transcripts. Superordinate themes included: caregiver’s life story; significance of family; caregiving obligations; caring relationship; challenges and gains associated with caregiver motivations. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were less distinct in caregivers’ lived experiences than previously suggested, and were influenced by family values and specific challenges and gains of caregiving. The coexistence of different motivations and the nature of single complex motivations is discussed. The importance of caregiver assessment and support planning, and regular breaks from caregiving are highlighted.
“…Barber, 2010;Humphrey, 1997), but it does examine the latter two by considering psychological and social motivations for caring. Interestingly, the issue of reciprocity presented in Social Exchange Theory (Adams et al, 1976) was rarely mentioned by caregivers in this study, which is surprising given the prevalence of this motivation in existing literature (Zarzycki et al, 2022b). Contrary to Social Exchange Theory, the current data supports the importance of motivations other than reciprocity, that is, affection or perceived obligation.…”
The adoption of a caregiving role in the context of illness and disability is often taken for granted. This study explores caregivers’ motivations to provide care and how these relate to values, and to the challenges and gains of caregiving. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with caregivers and photographs were taken by caregivers to exemplify their caregiving experiences. This photo-elicitation method complemented the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis when applied to verbatim transcripts. Superordinate themes included: caregiver’s life story; significance of family; caregiving obligations; caring relationship; challenges and gains associated with caregiver motivations. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were less distinct in caregivers’ lived experiences than previously suggested, and were influenced by family values and specific challenges and gains of caregiving. The coexistence of different motivations and the nature of single complex motivations is discussed. The importance of caregiver assessment and support planning, and regular breaks from caregiving are highlighted.
“…The PRISMA diagram summarises the search flow (Figure 1) for the systematic review with the main reasons for study exclusion. From an initial identification of 9793 papers, 105 were considered eligible studies for a review of diverse determinants of motivations and willingness to provide care (Zarzycki, Morrison, et al, 2022; Zarzycki, Seddon, et al, 2022). From these, 37 studies addressing culturally specific motivations for providing informal care were selected for the current meta-ethnographic synthesis.Figure 1.PRISMA flow chart of included studies.…”
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.
“…Finally, whilst assessments were made on socio-economic status, religion and ethnicity, there was limited data provided through the datasets on culture and attitudes to caregiving. Given these may influence the types of activities, frequency and relationship with care recipients, 44 , 45 future assessment in indicated to consider these potentially important factors.…”
Background Chronic pain is a disabling condition. Many people with chronic pain seek informal support for everyday activities of daily living (ADL). However, there remains uncertainty on the type of people with chronic pain who access this support, what types of support they need and who provides such support. The purpose of this analysis was to answer these uncertainties. Methods Data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) were accessed. People who reported chronic pain (moderate or above for minimum of 12 months) were identified. From these cohorts, we determined if individuals self-reported receiving informal care. Data on caregiver profiles and caregiving activities were reported through descriptive statistics. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare health status outcomes between people with pain who received and who did not receive informal care. Results 2178 people with chronic pain from the ELSA cohort and 571 from the HSE cohort were analysed. People who received care were frequently female, older aged with several medical morbidities including musculoskeletal diseases such as arthritis. People with chronic pain received informal care for several diverse tasks. Most frequently these related to instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) such as shopping and housework. They were most frequently provided by partners or their children. Although they reported greater disability and symptoms ( p < 0.001), people who received care did not report differences in health status, loneliness or wellbeing ( p = 0.27; p = 0.46). Conclusions Whilst it may be possible to characterise people living in chronic pain who receive informal care, there is some uncertainty on the impact of informal caregiving on their health and wellbeing. Consideration should now be made on how best to support both care recipients and informal caregivers, to ensure their health and quality of life is promoted whilst living with chronic pain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
