A comprehensive instrument to assess the experience of caregiving was developed. It is relevant to a broad range of ages, levels and types of disability and care provided; and, in assessing health and well-being, to both caregivers and non-caregivers. Scales, including both positive and negative dimensions, have demonstrated good internal consistency on two occasions. The instrument is potentially useful in a range of research and practical settings.

Research on family caregiving has been based largely on small samples, often drawn from support organisations or services, and has tended to focus on particular disability groups. Our study was population-based and included all ages and disabilities. As the first stage in a longitudinal research and health promotion program for informal caregivers, a statewide random survey of over 26 000 households was conducted by telephone: 78 per cent of self-identified carers ( N = 976) agreed to participate in a one-hour interview. This paper presents a sociodemographic profile of Australian caregivers. Four types of relationship between carers and care recipients (adult offspring, spouses, parents and other relatives and friends) provide the framework for results. Group differences were observed on most characteristics: for example, age, living arrangements, work status and duration of care. Care recipient characteristics, including difficult behaviours and need for assistance, are also reported, as well as use of and need for community services. What the findings reflected most was the heterogeneity of both caregivers and care recipients and the diversity of caregiving roles and circumstances. (Aust N Z J Public Health 1997; 21: 59-66) LTHOUGH the past two decades have seen a burgeoning of research interest in family A aregiving, methodological problems have

Objective: To examine differences between women family carers of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities and a group of women ‘non‐carers’ in self‐reported physical health, psychological well‐being, life satisfaction, social support and feelings of overload.

No abstract

Objective. To identify unmet need for services among family carers and their frail or disabled relatives and to facilitate links to services. Design. Intervention study with a subgroup of carer dyads from a random statewide survey of family carers, followed by telephone 2 months post intervention. Setting. Carer dyads in general community; urban and rural Victoria. Participants. All 186 identified carers were approached. One‐third of the dyads were ineligible; of the remainder, 67 (53%) participated, matching refusals on sociodemographic characteristics. Carers were typically married, middle‐aged women looking after parents or spouses. Almost half of the care recipients were aged ≥80; most had multiple disorders and impairments. Follow‐up rate was 94%. Intervention. One off, multidisciplinary home‐based assessment of dyad by research team and regional aged care assessment service (ACAT). Main outcome measures. ‘Unmet need’: % dyads recommended new services; number services per dyad via ACAT; increases in service range; extension of pre‐existing services. Service linkage: % dyads linked to new services; perceived usefulness of linkages. Main results. Dyads recommended a new service (93%); increased range (73%); extensions (41%). Average two services requiring ACAT implementation; commonly respite care, aids and paramedical services. Recommendations related to impairment severity and carer stress. ACAT implemented recommendations (90% relevant dyads); links rated useful (75% relevant dyads). Three‐quarters of the carers rated intervention as helpful. Conclusion. A preventative programme of needs assessment for carer dyads has considerable potential; (a) identifying needs and engaging new services; (b) providing emotional support. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.