| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 衛生福利研究所 === 99 === Abstract
Background
Future plans have a great impact on the families which have adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, there are still many families have not make any future care plan for adults with ID, and sometimes they meet many difficulties while in the process of choosing care plans. Therefore, this issue worth further discussing.
Objective
The aims of this study are as following:
1. To compare the caregivers and adults with ID’s characteristics between different future plans(y/n, choices).
2. To explore the impact of factors related to future plans(y/n, choices).
Method
This is a cross-sectional study which applied secondary data analysis. The data were from a census survey conducted in Hsin-Chu City and 795 caregivers of adults (aged 18 or older) with ID, and all the caregivers interviewed at their homes in 2007 to 2008.
The independent variables were 3 factors of Andersen Initial Behavioral Model. The dependent variables were future plans. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of caregivers of adults with ID on future plans.
Result
The major results of the study were as following:
1. Families that tend to make future plans are influenced by the following factors: (1) ID’s ‘age’ is older, (2) higher ‘family income’, (3) living in rural ‘area’, (4) joined in ‘parental group’, (5) ‘informal social support’ is lower, (6) ID’s ‘IADLs’ is lower.
2. Families that tend to choose “out- of- home” are influenced by the following factors: (1)living in urban ‘area’, (2) using of ‘social and health service’, (3) ID’s ‘level of disability’ is higher, (4) ID’s ‘IADLs’ is lower
3. Families that tend to choose “care by caregivers” are influenced by the following factors: (1) ID’s ‘gender’ is female, (2) caregiver’s ‘QOL’ is lower, (3) ID’s ‘level of disability’ is lower, (4) caregiver’s ‘health status’ is better.
4. Families that tend to choose “care by other relatives” are influenced by the following factors: (1) ‘relation with ID’ is parents, (2) higher ‘family income’, (3) caregiver’s ‘QOL’ is higher, (4) seldom use ‘social and health service’.
Implication
The research suggests that government should examine the urban-rural gap, focus on inequality in resources. Furthermore, workers should notice the difference between the in-home cares.
Government should put emphasis on the families which have lack of care manpower, have ID with extreme level of disabilities, and have lack of resource accessibility. Strengthen advocacy in ID’s formal care system, raise the use of the services, and assist family to make future plans.
Finally, we suggest that further researches may explore the relationship between the factors and future plans based on longitudinal study design, and included adults with ID’s opinions of future plans.
|
|---|
