Skip to main content

Table 3 Predictors of utilization of respite services during the last 12 months

From: Who are the beneficiaries and what are the reasons for non-utilization of care respite and support services? A cross-sectional study on family caregivers

Respite Service
N = 679
n (%)
Typical users Typical non-users
Predictors Nb n (%)c Predictors Nb n (%)c
Has used at least one kind of respite care
239 (35.2%)
→Received professional home care 230 132 (57%)a →Did not receive professional home care 449 107 (24%)a
 →Had onetime expense due to care over 22,000 CHF 16 16 (100%)   →Care service was not considered an important information topic 428 92 (21%)
Types of services
Driving service
108 (15.9%)
→Received over 1.5 h/week of professional home care 220 64 (29%) →Received less than 1.5 h/week of professional home care 459 44 (1%)a
 →Family caregiver lived in canton of ZH, ZG, BS, BL, SG, TI, GE 76 33 (43%)    
  →Person with SCI injured less than 7 years ago 25 17 (68%)a    
Household support
96 (14.1%)
→Received over 0.75 h/week of professional home care 214 59 (28%) →Received less 0.75 h/week of professional home care 465 37 (8%)a
 →Lived in canton of UR, ZG, TI 16 12 (75%)a  →Family caregiver lived in other cantons than SO, BL and VD 397 23 (6%)
Relief offer for holidays/short term home care
49 (7.2%)
→Received professional home care 230 36 (16%) →Did not receive professional home care 449 13 (3%)a
 →Lived in canton of ZH, BE, SH, SG, GR, TG 96 27 (28%)    
  →Family caregiver assisted in washing face and hands 32 14 (44%)    
Emergency call
38 (5.6%)
→Family caregivers aged 72 years old or older 107 16 (15%) →Family caregiver younger than 72 years 572 22 (4%)a
 →Lived in canton of SZ, TI, VD, GE 22 10 (45%)   →Family caregiver did not assist in mobility in the house 515 15 (3%)
  →Family caregiver assisted in mobility in moderate distance 10 8 (80%)a    →Family caregiver lived in other cantons than ZG, FR, SO, TG, TI, VD and VS 351 3 (1%)
Advice
30 (4.4%)
   No predictor identified    No predictor identified
Respite assistance at home during the day
29 (4.3%)
→Care service was considered an important information topic 88 15 (17%) →Care service was not considered an important information topic 591 14 (2%)a
 →Lived in canton of ZH, SG, GR, AG, GE 26 9 (35%)    
  →Received financial compensation for caregiving 17 9 (53%)a    
Day care in nursing home
27 (4.0%)
→Family caregiver aged 67 years or older 197 19 (10%) →Family caregiver younger than 67 years old 482 8 (2%)a
 →Family caregiver lived in canton of SG, GR, NE 11 6 (55%)a    
Night care
16 (2.4%)
    No predictor identified     No predictor identified
Social companionship/visit
16 (2.4%)
→Family caregiver missed someone to talk to 129 10 (8%) →Family caregiver did not miss someone to talk to 550 6 (1%)a
  →Family caregiver lived in canton of SO, TI, VD and JU 23 6 (26%)    
   →Family caregiver did not assist in foot washing 11 6 (55%)a    
Support groups for family members
7 (1.0%)
    No predictor identified     No predictor identified
Training courses
6 (0.9%)
    No predictor identified     No predictor identified
  1. Abbreviations: SCI Spinal cord injury, CHF Swiss Francs, Cantons were presented in abbreviations
  2. a The predictor significantly predicted the outcome
  3. b N = the total number of participants in the respective nodes
  4. c n = the number of participants who utilized a particular service among the participants in the respective nodes; % = the percentage of participants utilizing a particular service in the respective nodes