IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Please listen to me”: A cross-sectional study of experiences of seniors and their caregivers making housing decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Rhéda Adekpedjou
  • Dawn Stacey
  • Nathalie Brière
  • Adriana Freitas
  • Mirjam M Garvelink
  • Stéphane Turcotte
  • Matthew Menear
  • Henriette Bourassa
  • Kimberley Fraser
  • Pierre J Durand
  • Serge Dumont
  • Lise Roy
  • France Légaré

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the decision-making experiences of seniors and informal caregivers facing decisions about seniors’ housing decisions when objective decision making measures are used. Objectives: To report on seniors’ and caregivers’ experiences of housing decisions. Design: A cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach supplemented by qualitative data. Setting: Sixteen health jurisdictions providing home care services, Quebec province, Canada. Participants: Two separate samples of seniors aged ≥ 65 years and informal caregivers of cognitively impaired seniors who had made a decision about housing. Measurements: Information on preferred choice and actual choice about housing, role assumed in the decision, decisional conflict and decision regret was obtained through closed-ended questionnaires. Research assistants paraphrased participants’ narratives about their decision-making experiences and made other observations in standardized logbooks. Results: Thirty-one seniors (median age: 85.5 years) and 48 caregivers (median age: 65.1 years) were recruited. Both seniors and caregivers preferred that the senior stay at home (64.5% and 71.7% respectively). Staying home was the actual choice for only 32.2% of participating seniors and 36.2% of the seniors cared for by the participating caregivers. Overall, 93% seniors and 71% caregivers reported taking an active or collaborative role in the decision-making process. The median decisional conflict score was 23/100 for seniors and 30/100 for caregivers. The median decision regret score was the same for both (10/100). Qualitative analysis revealed that the housing decision was influenced by factors such as seniors’ health and safety concerns and caregivers’ burden of care. Some caregivers felt sad and guilty when the decision did not match the senior’s preference. Conclusion: The actual housing decision made for seniors frequently did not match their preferred housing option. Advanced care planning regarding housing and better decision support are needed for these difficult decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhéda Adekpedjou & Dawn Stacey & Nathalie Brière & Adriana Freitas & Mirjam M Garvelink & Stéphane Turcotte & Matthew Menear & Henriette Bourassa & Kimberley Fraser & Pierre J Durand & Serge Dumont & , 2018. "“Please listen to me”: A cross-sectional study of experiences of seniors and their caregivers making housing decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202975
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202975
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202975&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.