Dyad (sociology) - Wikipedia
Dyadic Relationship Scale (DRS) for use with university students. The Findings and Results: The Communication subscale has a six-factor structure and. members), dyadic (relationships), and family (as a whole) levels are intertwined. .. family dimension is tested as a second-order factor and dyadic relationship. Dyadic relationship conflict, gender, and mortality in urban hemodialysis patients and if so, whether there were different relationships between risk factors, and.
We used the modified stress-appraisal model proposed by Greenwell et al. The model suggests that primary stressors e. Mutuality is also proposed to have a direct effect on caregiver burden and HRQoL. In the present study we only explored primary stressors association with mutuality and outcomes such as PD-patients HRQoL and caregiver burden. We hypothesized that there are 1 differences of perceived level of mutuality by PD-patients and PD-partners, 2 differences in factors associated with the mutuality of PD-patients and PD-partners, and 3 a relationship between mutuality perceived by PD-patients and PD-partners as well as PD-patients' HRQoL and caregiver burden.
Materials and Method 2. Participants In the present study, we report results from baseline data of a longitudinal study. The study was approved by the local research ethics committee registration number: Eligibility Criteria To be included in the study, a specialist in movement disorders should have diagnosed the PD-patient. Furthermore, none of the PD-partners should be employed as a caregiver.
Procedure The clinical examinations were performed by MK. The care dyads filled out the questionnaires' separately and individually, in the presence of the first author, at the outpatient clinic or during a home visit whichever was most convenient for the dyads.
The questionnaires were filled out after having obtained, read, and signed a written consent. Descriptive and sociodemographic data was also collected. The scale comprises 8 items, using 5-point Likert scale, and covers domains as mobility, activities of daily life, emotional wellbeing, stigma, social support, cognition, communication, and bodily discomfort.
A summary index PDQ8SI was calculated as the sum of items divided by maximum per item times number of items and then multiplied by It covers domains such as general strain, isolation, disappointment, and emotional involvement.
The total scale score ranges from 22 to Higher score indicates more feelings of stress and burden in the caregiving situation [ 22 ]. The CBS has been used in samples of patients with Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders [ 22 — 24 ].
Dependent and Predictor Variable The quality of the caregiver-care receiver relationship was measured through the mutuality scale MS [ 1112 ]. It covers domains such as love and affection 3 itemsshared pleasurable activates 4 itemsshared values 2 itemsand reciprocity 6 items [ 1218 ].
The summary score is calculated as the mean value of all the individual items' scores for the whole scale and the above-mentioned domains. The total scale score ranges from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate better quality of mutual relationship between the care dyads [ 1112 ].
We have recently reported the psychometric properties of the Swedish version of MS [ 25 ]. It contains 6 stages where 0 indicates no visible symptoms and 5 represents a PD-patient who is unable to walk unless assisted [ 26 ].
The scale contains 14 items and is answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate more severe motor signs [ 27 ].
Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly IQCODE uses information from the caregiver to assess functional changes associated with cognitive functioning in the patients under care.
The scale contains 26 items and is answered using a 5-point Likert scale.
Constellations of dyadic relationship quality in stepfamilies: A factor mixture model — Add Health
The individual score is calculated by the mean across all item scores, ranging between 1 and 5. The PD-patients' physical functioning and level of dependency were assessed by the PD-partner using the modified form of the extended Katz index [ 30 ].
Scores above 26 are considered to be normal [ 31 ]. Nominal and categorical data are reported as relative frequency and percentages. Prior to the main analyses, we explored the normality of the distribution of all the dependent variables DVs.
Most of the dependent variables' total score were normally distributed with no excessive skewness or kurtosis. Advanced Search Abstract Purpose: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Dyadic Relationship Scale DRSwhich measures negative and positive dyadic interactions from the perspective of both the patient and the family caregiver.
An important aspect of evaluating the DRS was that it be statistically sound and meaningful for both members of the dyad. The study used a cross-sectional design.
Survey packages were mailed to home health care patients and their family caregivers. The unit of analysis was the dyad, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. We examined the reliability, discriminant, and concurrent validities of the instrument. The analysis supported the DRS's construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity, as well as its reliability for both patients and family caregivers.
Using the DRS to measure the impact of family care on positive and negative interactions inclusive of patients and caregivers can assist in identifying areas of difficulty and guide interventions to improve outcomes for both members of the dyad.
This preference is consistent for individuals who require care and for those who provide the care Kellett, a. Family care can occur across the life span and refers to unpaid assistance to a patient by family and friends in the patient's place of residence Archbold et al. A family caregiver can be any family member or friend broadly defined who provides assistance to a patient.
Family care involves complex interactions that can be stressful and lead to poor physical and mental health outcomes for both providers and receivers of care Beach et al. Positive aspects of family care also exist, such as improved self-worth, sense of meaning, and adaptation to chronic illness Kramer, ; Reinhardt, It is important for clinicians and researchers to understand the positive and negative aspects of family care because of the impact of these factors on outcomes for both caregivers and patients.
Moreover, the care provided by family members assists patients to live in communities of their preference. In the medical and nursing literature, the focus is more patient centered, and the providers of family care are often overlooked by researchers studying patient outcomes Lauver et al.
Within the gerontology and caregiving literature, the focus is on caregiver outcomes, with less attention paid to patient outcomes Martire et al.
By focusing only on one or the other member of the care dyad, investigators neglect important information about the reciprocal influence of one person on the other.
The present study addressed two themes related to the provision of family care for adults with chronic conditions. First, we included both members of the family care dyad. Second, we focused on evaluating the psychometric properties of the Dyadic Relationship Scale DRSwhich measures positive and negative aspects of the dyadic relationship intrinsic to family care. In addition to examining the psychometrics of the DRS, we examined the association between the DRS and depressive symptoms.
In addition to dyadic factors, another important influence on family care is a family's history and patterns of interdependence. Families have experiences providing assistance to members and develop interpersonal patterns that are not easily changed Gaugler et al. For example, family members may see themselves as primarily parents, spouses, friends, or other relations. For some, these relationships lead naturally to caring for one another because of the nature of belonging to a family with mutual concern for its members.
However, for others that may not be true. Past relationships, either positive or negative, will influence willingness to provide assistance in the present. Using this framework, Bass and colleagues found that supportive family or friends have the capacity to alter the relationship between need for assistance in chronic illness and relationship strain. Supportive relationships may alter the negative effects of physical impairment on strain by reducing the consequences of a patient's impairment Bass et al.
Bass and colleagues assumed that the experience of providing and receiving care is a function of perceptions and appraisals of the situation rather than an outside objective viewpoint. Reis and Collins embedded social support in an interpersonal context and suggested that three types of phenomena are critical to understanding social support as an interpersonal process: These authors argued that a change in one of these phenomena will influence a change in the other components.
They suggested that long-term relationships provide multiple opportunities for reversing the role of support seeker and provider, and support is more likely to the extent that a relationship is interdependent, responsive, and affectively positive.
Reis and Collins also suggested that positive and negative affect represent independent qualities in a relationship. Reinhardt examined the effect of positive and negative aspects of family care, both received and provided, on adaptation to chronic physical impairment in patients with age-related vision loss. Findings indicated that patients who received affective support had less depressive symptoms, greater life satisfaction, and better adaptation.
Visually impaired patients who provided greater affective support to their family members also had higher life satisfaction. Both the receipt and the provision of negative exchanges with family members were associated with greater depressive symptoms. Liang and colleagues suggested that negative aspects of received support are helping distress feeling mental and emotional strain when helped and negative interaction feeling others are being critical of you and prying into personal affairs.
In contrast, opportunities to reciprocate within a family contributed to positive aspects.
Constellations of dyadic relationship quality in stepfamilies: A factor mixture model
Research has also reported positive aspects of family care for caregivers. The findings from these studies highlight the importance of measuring a positive and negative aspects of family care and b the influence of these aspects on the well-being of both members of the care dyad. By understanding and measuring the positive and negative aspects of family care, clinicians and researchers could reconceptualize how they assess members of the dyad, work more effectively with the dyad, and guide the testing of interventions to improve outcomes for both members of the dyad.
The focus of this study was the evaluation of the psychometric properties of a revised version of the original DRS using a sample of home health family care dyads. An important aspect of the evaluation was to validate that the DRS was statistically sound and meaningful for both the caregivers and care recipients.
Specifically, we examined a the scale's reliability internal consistencyb the construct validity of the caregiver and patient versions of the DRS, and c discriminant and concurrent validities. Based on propositions by Kramer and Reis and Collins that positive and negative affect represent independent phenomena, we expected to find a positive correlation between negative dyadic strain and depressive symptoms for both members of the dyad, and no correlation between positive interaction and depressive symptoms.
Methods Sample A Medicare-certified home health care agency serving both urban and rural populations in a midwestern state provided access to patients and caregivers for this study. Personnel from the agency's information system department selected patients from their databases who met study criteria.
Criteria for inclusion were being older than 18 years of age, having intact cognitive ability and vision, and living with a person who provided unpaid assistance. Patients were eligible if they had a rating of 0 sees adequately in most situations; can see medication labels, newsprint.
Patients were eligible if a person assisting them was residing in the home. Agency personnel identified 1, eligible cases. From the list of eligible patients, cases were randomly selected using a table of random numbers and invited to participate in the study. Procedures We obtained institutional review board approval from university and health care organizations. Survey packages were mailed to home health care patients who were identified as having an informal caregiver.
The identities of caregivers were unknown to the researcher; therefore, the patient participants were instructed to give the caregiver survey to whomever assisted them the most. Each survey package included a patient and a caregiver version of the DRS, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression scale CES-Ddemographic questions, and a measure of functional status; written instructions; and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope.
Both members were encouraged to participate.
At 4 weeks we sent a second survey to nonresponders, and at 6 weeks nonresponders received a follow-up phone call inquiring about the survey. In a few cases participants provided a reason for not participating; common reasons were language differences e. The original item scale, which drew upon previous measures of caregiver stress and burden Zarit et al. DRS items assess a variety of potential relationship stressors: The patient version 10 items and the caregiver version 11 items have two subscales: Higher scores on each of these scales indicate higher levels of strain and positive interaction, respectively.
Higher scores on the CES-D indicate higher levels of depressive symptoms, and a cutoff score of 16 or higher is commonly used to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms McDowell, We defined patient functional status as the patient's and caregiver's subjective perceptions of the patient's limitation in normal activity. The KPS has 10 categories describing a patient's limitation in normal activity e.