Skip to main content

Table 4 Predictors of reasons for non-utilization of respite services during the previous 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

Situation for non-use of respite services

N = 432

n (%)

Reason endorsed

Reason not endorsed

Predictors

Nb

n (%)c

Predictors

Nb

n (%)c

No demand 344 (79.6%)

→Sometimes/never perceived caregiving as negative to their emotional well-being

402

336 (84%)a

→Mostly/always perceived caregiving as negative to their emotional wellbeing

30

8 (27%)a

 →Highly satisfied with their financial situation

261

238 (91%)

 →Lived in canton of FR, SG, AG, TI, VD, VS, NE, GE

15

0 (0%)

  →Family caregiver spent less than 52 h/week in caregiving

249

231 (93%)

   

Sufficient support by family or friends 94 (21.8%)

→Other informal caregiver involved

180

62 (34%)

→No other informal caregiver involved

252

32 (13%)a

 →Family caregiver lived in canton of ZH, BE, LU, SZ, NW, GL, ZG, FR, BL, SG, GR, AG, TI, VD, VS, NE

160

62 (39%)

 →Family caregiver lived in other cantons than SH, GR, TI, VS, NE

216

20 (9%)

  →Lower personal income (less than 6000 CHF per month)

64

35 (55%)a

  →Family caregiver with low satisfaction of interpersonal relationship

156

9 (6%)

Care recipient uncomfortable with strangers/preference of family 53 (12.3%)

→Family caregiver spent 30 h/week or more in caregiving

91

28 (31%)

→Family caregiver spent less than 30 h/week in caregiving

341

25 (7%)a

 →Lived in canton of LU, SZ, OW, GL, FR, GR, AG, TI, VS, GE

36

20 (56%)a

 →Sometimes/never perceived caregiving as negative to their emotional well-being

322

18 (6%)

  →Family caregiver aged 54 years or older

29

20 (69%)

  →Family caregiver did not assist in dressing lower body

231

6 (3%)

Too expensive/not covered by insurance

38 (8.8%)

→Low quality of life (“very bad” to “neither good nor bad”)

79

20 (25%)

→High quality of life (“good” to “very good”)

353

18 (5%)a

 →Live in canton of LU, SH, SG, AG, GE

18

11 (61%)a

   

Not available

13 (3.0%)

   No predictor identified

   No predictor identified

Inconvenient schedule

9 (2.1%)

→Family caregiver spent 65 h/week or more in caregiving

21

3 (14%)

→Family caregiver spent less than 65 h/week in caregiving

411

6 (1%)a

 →Lived in canton of GL, FR, BL

5

3 (60%)a

 →Family caregiver did not live alone

383

3 (1%)

Bad experience with service provider

6 (1.4%)

   No predictor identified

   No predictor identified

No trust in service providers

3 (0.7%)

   No predictor identified

   No predictor identified

  1. Abbreviations: SCI Spinal cord injury; 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 utilizing a particular service in the respective nodes