Abstract
Background Caring for someone with moderate to advanced dementia within a domestic home setting can be burdensome and time-consuming. To ensure the effectiveness of care planning and delivery, especially towards the end of life, understanding the nature and impact of such caregiving on the family carer is important. Synthesising existing research will allow greater insight into this experience.
Review question ‘How do family carers describe their experience of providing home-based care for people with moderate to advanced dementia?’
Design A narrative synthesis of qualitative research exploring the experiences of people with moderate to advanced dementia and their family carers was conducted. Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete) were searched from 1984 to 2020. Similarities and differences between papers were grouped using textual narrative synthesis.
Findings This paper reports findings from a PhD thesis (James, 2021). Included papers (n=17) incorporated those focused on caring for people with advanced dementia (n=8), and those with moderate dementia (n=9). Family carers reported an experience of loss, burden, and grief. Experiences of internal conflict also led to psychological distress. These experiences had a negative impact on the general health of the family carer. Improvement in the family carer’s inter-relationships and the feeling of being useful or having a sense of meaning were reported as positive aspects of caregiving.
Conclusion A complete description of family carers’ experiences may be inadequate in conveying an acknowledgement of dementia as an illness within the domestic home. Their justifications and determinants for balancing family carers’ challenges and distress to morals also remain unclear. Further research is required to ascertain how family carers may proportionally balance their personified loss with their personified value earlier in the disease trajectory.
Introduction
Accounts of caring for someone living with dementia are mostly rooted within negative experiences, such as the associated burden (Lindeza et al., 2020; Bieber et al., 2019; Farina et al., 2017). Burden, in this respect, may be described as the impact of the difficulties associated with the dementia diagnosis, which increases the level of uncertainty about the future for both the person with the disease and their family (Galvin & Sadowski, 2012; Phillips, 2011). However, not all family carers, who are mostly unpaid, perceive their experiences as burdensome.
Being diagnosed with dementia is often regarded as a burden which increases the level of uncertainty about the future for both the person with the disease and their family (Galvin & Sadowski, 2012; Phillips, 2011). As a factor which also increases the social implications for the people diagnosed and their families, given their difficulty in preparedness, receiving a diagnosis of dementia is often difficult and sometimes described in terms of a feeling of shame and loss of oneself (Xanthopoulou & McCabe, 2019; van Gennip et al., 2016; Lee & Weston, 2011; Aminzadeh et al., 2007).
Life expectancy in dementia varies between individuals. Although a duration of less than 10 years after diagnosis is regarded as a common assumption (Joling et al., 2020), it is unpredictable in comparison with other terminal diseases, such as cancer (Vestergaard et al., 2020; Hall & Sikes, 2018; Arcand, 2015; Harris, 2007). The duration of caring for someone with dementia is therefore likely to last longer than in most other terminal illnesses. The level of decline in dementia is often described in stages, although the duration of each stage is usually unknown. While a cure or effective prevention for dementia is currently unavailable, its stages represent the degree of its severity and are usually identified between the early to the most severe level of decline (Alzheimer’s Society, 2015; Schmidt, 2014; Auer & Reisberg, 1997). A progressive decline in self-care activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing, and toileting by the person diagnosed is often useful for its stage categorisation (Kumar et al., 2020; Mlinac & Feng, 2016; Marshall et al., 2012).
The responsibilities of family carers usually increase in line with its severity and vary according to the needs of the person cared for (Mesterton et al., 2010). Fulfilling a home home-based care wish in dementia often relies on the willingness of a family carer to take on the role. In some cases, such care provision may be viewed as the family carer’s choice. However, the assumption of the role is mostly associated with a lack of choice (Pertl et al., 2019; Reinhard et al., 2012; Schulz et al., 2012; Al-janabi et al., 2018). A view of family caregiving as performing a moral obligation is therefore plausible.
Given evidence suggests that around 36% of family carers spend more than 100 hours per week, while about 40% provide round-the-clock care (Dementia Carers Count, 2019). In some cases, instances of further unpredictable difficulties, such as behavioural changes are likely over the disease trajectory (van Wijngaarden et al., 2018; Schulz & Eden, 2016). The likelihood of this long caregiving combined with a possible lack of choice leading to family carers’ increased burden and depression is high (Greenwood & Smith, 2019; Karg et al., 2018; Schulz et al., 2012).
Experiences of decline in dementia are unique within its different stages. Within the moderate stage, for example, variations of decline in individual capabilities are possible (Clemmensen et al., 2016; Alzheimer’s Society, 2015). This may be experienced earlier or later by some people, or not at all by others. It is also possible for stages to overlap (Alzheimer’s Society, 2015), which suggests the likelihood of a variation of family carers’ experiences while caregiving within dementia stages. The focus of this review is to explore and synthesise the experiences of family carers while caregiving for people living with dementia within a home setting.
Aim & objectives
To understand the experiences of family carers who provide care for people with moderate to advanced dementia within a domestic home setting.
Methods
Design
A textual narrative synthesis approach was adopted due to its appropriateness in ensuring that similarities and differences between multiple studies were systematically explored (Popay et al., 2006). The stages suggested by Popay et al. (2006), were followed, including identifying the review focus, specifying the review question, identifying studies to include data extraction and quality appraisal, synthesising of the findings, and reporting of findings. The study protocol is published (James et al., 2020).
Specifying the review question and inclusion criteria
Family carers are people who may not reside with the care recipient, but provide unpaid and significant care (Lindeza et al., 2020; Evans et al., 2019; Woodman et al., 2016). Whilst they are often crucial to the quality of life of the care recipient, they are also regarded as the invisible second patient due to their own care needs (Karg et al, 2018; Sanders, 2016; Brodaty & Donkin, 2009). A purposive search of the key terms, dementia and family carers, and their variations was conducted for the comprehensiveness of the inclusion criteria (Table 1).
Search strategy and process
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete. Websites and grey literature were also searched. For all searches, the terms and strategy used a broad range of terms and relevant keywords related to dementia, caregivers, and qualitative studies. These were checked by CW and CS, who were familiar with the domain of dementia and care provision. The search strategy was also tailored for use with each database, using Boolean operators, truncations, and Medical Subject Heading (MESH) as appropriate for each database (Table 2).
The decision to include all papers published from 1984 to 2020 was based on the reported increase in diagnosis and people caring informally (Lewis et al., 2014). Supplementary searches of the reference lists of identified studies were also conducted. The list of studies returned from the searches was imported into Endnote, an online reference management software (Lorenzetti & Ghali, 2013), to remove duplicates and ensure the validity and reliability of the review process’ (Kwon et al., 2015) (See Table 2 above).
Data extraction
Key data such as author’s name, publication origin and year, setting, population and sample size, aims and objectives, data collection method, and main findings, which show the family carers’ actions were extracted from the included papers.
Quality and bias assessment
A non-discriminatory tool developed by Hawker et al. (2002) and adapted by Lorenc et al. (2014) was used in assessing the quality of the included papers. Based on the adaptability of its structure to a variety of methodologically distinctive designs, the purpose of this tool was to assess the understanding of quality within the synthesis, rather than to exclude papers of lower quality. The studies included in this review were assessed by two study supervisors, CW and CS. The purpose was to check the results of the appraisal process and ensure the appropriateness of the selected tool as well as the overall process of quality assessment (See Supplementary Table 1).
Approach to synthesis
A textual narrative synthesis approach was adopted in accordance with guidance from Popay et al. (2006), ensuring the exploration of synthesised words or texts from systematically selected studies using their similarities and differences. A total of 2248 full-text articles were reviewed, with seventeen papers included in the narrative synthesis (Fig 1). Eight studies presented data from those only caring for people with advanced dementia, nine included data from those caring for people with both moderate dementia and advanced dementia. While the review was not focused on establishing a comparison of experiences between genders, it is noteworthy that two studies were dedicated solely to accounts from female family carers (De Silva & Curzio, 2009; de La Cuesta-Benjumea, 2011).
Review findings
The review findings are presented in three stages. Systematically extracted data are first tabulated to display the similarities and differences between the findings of each selected paper (Popay et al., 2006) (Table 3).
Synthesising the findings
Papers were grouped in the second stage according to the disease stage, country, authors, and population, and the common focus identified in the literature. A textual narrative synthesis of the common focus between the included studies was presented, which shows the interrelationship between the different studies in terms of their commonality on how caregiving experiences differ at both the moderate and advanced stages of dementia (See Supplementary Table 2). In the third stage, a preliminary synthesis is also presented, as a test for the robustness of the synthesised results and as an initial stage to result presentation. Popay et al. (2006) consider this a crucial interrogation of the initial synthesis required to understand the reasons for the findings presented by each study included (See Supplementary Table 3).
Textual narrative synthesis and presentation of findings
In congruence with Popay et al. (2006), the navigation of the textual narrative synthesis is sequential, showing the family carers’ differentiated accounts of reported burden, loss, grief, how they coped with challenges and the motivation for carrying on with care provision within the explored stages of dementia. These findings are not presented in any hierarchy of importance. However, given its commonality of experience in dementia caregiving, the account of burden is presented first.
Burden: experience at moderate and advanced stages
Family carers in the moderate stage experienced increased caregiving responsibility due to increased care recipient’s needs (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010; Adams & Sanders, 2004). Extended time was spent caregiving as a result, which led to a clash with other social roles and a difficulty in meeting the family carers’ own needs (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010). In the case of spousal caregivers, extended time spent on caregiving was also highlighted (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010; Adams & Sanders, 2004). Whilst the extended time caregiving was considered a necessity in some cases as highlighted by Adams and Sanders (2004), the reason for this was not given. Swall et al. (2019) and Hellström et al. (2005) suggested, however, that this may be attributable to their couplehood.
Increased caregiving responsibility caused family carers’ increased burden at the moderate stage of dementia (Adams & Sanders, 2004). Their difficulty in meeting own needs also intensified over time (Chan et al., 2010). This finding represented a high cost of caring with possible risk to family carers’ mental and physical health (Idura et al., 2018; Brunton et al., 2008; Adams & Sanders, 2004). Furthermore, contrary to the report of an increase in caregiving being the only association to caregivers’ increased burden, evidence also showed that family carers’ increased burden was linked to progressive decline and changes in the care recipient’s behaviour (Idura et al., 2018; Karger, 2018; Lindauer et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2010).
The collective account at the advanced stage further associated family carers’ burden with care recipient’s behavioural changes, which existed as part of progressive decline in dementia (Colling, 2004). Passivity, a distinctive change in care recipient’s behaviour, which also affects functionality in thinking, movement, and interactions with others, was cited as an example (Colling, 2004). However, the severity of this change did not increase the family carers’ burden (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010). Passivity also changed the care recipient’s emotional responses and caused the family carers’ difficulty in accepting care recipients’ changes (Karger, 2018). Overall, as the care recipient’s passivity increased, the family carers’ helplessness, sadness, and frustration at the inability to help also increased (Colling, 2004).
Passivity was, however, not only distinctive at the advanced stage. Common symptoms of increased agitation, aggression, and withdrawal were also reported at the moderate stage (Lindauer et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2010; Colling, 2004). As care recipients became more passive and required help with functional activities such as personal care, the demand for their carer’s attention also increased (Colling, 2004). This also caused the family carers’ burden to increase in line with care recipients’ increasing passivity at this stage of the disease.
Some family carers found it difficult to accept the process of care recipients’ decline and expressed the most sadness at the advanced stage (Colling, 2004). Despite this, they accepted their role better, as they were adjusted to their new lifestyle (Chan et al., 2010; Colling, 2004). In comparison, less burden was reported by family carers at the moderate stage (Colling, 2004), which was attributed to their reliance on external resources such as extended family support (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008). While the availability of external support was commonly perceived as being able to reduce burden by family carers for recipients at both stages of dementia (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010), evidence of consistency in burden reduction at either stage was not discussed in the reviewed literature.
Some family carers were assisted by their extended family (Brunton et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2001). Others experienced difficulty in asking for support (Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2001). Some family carers had to “apply pressure” to receive any assistance at all (Brunton et al., 2008), and disappointment was sometimes experienced at the level of assistance offered (Smith et al., 2001). Although some positive experiences were reported, such as the report of an improvement in interrelationships (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010), tension within the family was a possibility (Chan et al., 2010). This also supports the finding that the reduction of family carer’s burden through extended family support at both stages of dementia was not true in all cases.
Poor understanding of family carers’ needs (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010), was commonly evidenced as one of the factors for inadequate familial assistance at both stages (Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008). Other reasons include living away from the care recipient (Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008), and familial indifference (Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008). Receiving assistance from the family was therefore not always available. Moreover, it was possible for family expectations to attach a sense of duty to caregiving (Idura et al., 2018; Tretteteig et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2010). As such, caregiving therefore became an obligation at both stages (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010).
Loss: experience at moderate and advanced stages
Family carers’ loss was explored from two perspectives. The first, mostly descriptive of the narrative at the moderate stage, was related to their personal changes. This was described in relation to own time, freedom, independence, and being able to socialise (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010; Brunton et al., 2008; Adams & Sanders, 2004). These lifestyle changes were stressful (Colling et al., 2004), and attributable to their increased caregiving responsibilities (Chan et al., 2010; Adams & Sanders, 2004; Colling, 2004). It was further reported by those who identified themselves as spouses, that this type of loss was the highest, especially in cases where caregiving ceases to be provided at home at the advanced stage of the disease (Adams & Sanders, 2004). Their loss was also accompanied by guilt (Adams & Sanders, 2004).
The second perspective was associated with the care recipient’s changes, mostly at the advanced stage. This was described as the care recipient’s altered behaviour (Colling, 2004), and the difference over time (Adams & Sanders, 2004; Colling, 2004). For this type of loss, care recipients were described in relation to who they once were (Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004), in terms of their personality (Tretteteig et al., 2017; Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004), and relationship once jointly shared with the family carer (Tretteteig et al., 2017; Lindauer et al., 2016; Brunton et al., 2008; Adams & Sanders, 2004).
Some family carers did not emphasise their care recipient’s personality changes (Lindauer et al.,2016). For them, the care recipient’s significance or value was instead considered of more relevance (Lindauer et al., 2016), than the changes attributed to what has been lost to dementia (Lindauer et al., 2016). These family carers therefore held on to “what remained” of the care recipient for as long as possible (Lindauer et al., 2016, p.738). However, some family carers placed more emphasis on their care recipient’s lost personality (Adams & Sanders, 2004), instead of what remained (Lindauer et al., 2016). In comparison to those who considered the value of their care recipients to be of more significance, these carers regarded their care recipients as already gone (Adams & Sanders, 2004).
A commonality in the description of loss was therefore established as the recognition of the absence of the care recipient’s valued personality (Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004). Both of these studies also gave evidence of a common experience of a paradoxical feeling, described as holding on to ‘what remains of the care recipient’ (Lindauer et al., 2016), or holding on to ‘someone who was already gone’ (Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004). These two expressions appear synonymous. However, while evidence of historical hardship was cited between carers and care recipients in Lindauer et al. (2016), the existence of such a relationship was not described by Adams and Sanders (2004).
Grief: experience at moderate and advanced stages
Across the trajectory of dementia, variance in grief level existed (Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004). As an emotional response to losing a loved one (Moore et al., 2017; Adams & Sanders, 2004; Colling, 2004), its severity was described as being at its highest at the advanced stage (Idura et al., 2018; Wladkowski, 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004). In some cases, while family carers’ perception of grief was regarded as part of the pre-death experience (Moore et al., 2017; Lindauer et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004), it was also associated with the observation of the care recipient’s decline (Colling, 2004). Irrespective of the relationship between the family carer and their care recipient, the association between higher grief level and higher loss reported at the advanced stage was unclear.
Some family carers reported a no-grief experience at both stages of dementia. At the moderate stage, for instance, this was considered a response to the delay in the care recipient’s decline (Adams & Sanders, 2004). As a result, carers at this stage concentrated on their care recipient’s lost personhood as an outlet for their perceived loss (Adams & Sanders, 2004). Although this claim was also supported by Lindauer et al. (2016), both studies differed in some of their findings. While Lindauer et al. (2016) asserted that carers who reported a no-grief experience focused on their care recipient’s personality which remained, Adams and Sanders (2004) reported that family carers’ emphasis was on their care recipient’s already lost personality. The carers’ no-grief experience was therefore related to anger, self-pity, or shame. (Adams & Sanders, 2004). On the other hand, the no-grief experience reported, especially by those with a shared history of hardship (Lindauer et al., 2016), establishes a defining characteristic of a shared identity.
Holding on to what remains caused some family carers’ unpreparedness for the care recipient’s death (Moore et al., 2017; Lindauer et al., 2016), as caregiver-attributed value was preserved longer. Indeed, for some, grief was irrelevant, and the reality of actual death was unacceptable (Lindauer et al., 2016). In this situation, a prolonged after-death grieving was therefore possible.
Dealing with challenges and continuing with caregiving
Caregiving was perceived as a natural obligation by some family carers (Lindauer et al., 2016), and they used religion to cope with the caregiving challenges encountered (Idura et al.,2018; Lindauer et al., 2016; Colling, 2004; Smith et al., 2001). Through religion, caregiving was perceived by some as rewarding or as the ‘inheritance of good morals’ (Idura et al., 2018), while others considered it as fulfilling an important role (Lindauer et al., 2016), or doing the right thing (Tretteteig et al., 2017). These perceptions were common across both stages of the disease.
Caregiving expectations carried a sense of obligation, attributed by societal and cultural values (Idura et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2010), or the carer’s self-induced expectations to provide care (Idura et al., 2018; Tretteteig et al., 2017). This, however, varied with relationship between the carer and the care recipient (Idura et al., 2018; Tretteteig et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2010). In some societies, for instance, the obligation to provide care to older people was placed on their family (Lindauer et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2010) by sources such as the society (Tretteteig et al., 2017), religion (Idura et al., 2018), culture (Chan et al., 2010), a sense of history, and identity shared with the care recipient (Lindauer et al., 2016). In these societies, the perceived sense of duty, therefore, influenced caregiving (Tretteteig et al., 2017).
The fear of inadequacy in knowledge and skills existed in some family carers’ preparation for their increased caregiving responsibilities (Idura et al., 2018). At the moderate stage, this was managed by finding a balance between own expectations and the reality of the care recipient’s behavioural changes (Idura et al., 2018). Although some carers used their prior knowledge of the care recipient’s background for managing challenges faced in caregiving (Colling, 2004), others considered care recipient’s placement in a care home (Lethin et al., 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004; Smith et al., 2001), or receiving support at home (Lethin et al., 2016). For most carers, placing the care recipients away from home was however inconceivable, especially at the advanced stage.
A preference for continuing with home-based caregiving was highlighted, especially in situations where the care recipient’s decline necessitates consideration for care provision outside of the home setting (Lindauer et al., 2016). Some family carers found this decision difficult, and the wish to maintain control on caregiving persisted (De Silva & Curzio, 2009). This wish to maintain control increased their ability to make meaning of the caregiving role (Tretteteig et al., 2017). Although this was considered a characteristic of carer’s grief (Adams & Sanders, 2004), maintaining control was also crucial for balancing the carer-to-recipient relationship.
Loss of control was accompanied by a feeling of guilt and sadness, especially where the care recipient’s placement away from home was necessary (Moore et al., 2017; Tretteteig et al., 2017; De Silva & Curzio, 2009; Adams & Sanders, 2004; Chan et al., 2010). The fear of poor caregiving by others outside of the home setting was cited as a reason (Moore et al., 2017). Situations occurred whereby some of the family carers’ guilt and sadness persisted beyond bereavement, due to self-blame (Moore et al., 2017). Although evidence was given which showed that this further increased the reluctance to seek outside care away from home, the influence of family carers’ perceived obligation to continue caregiving, and their need to maintain control in such cases was unclear.
Moving the person cared for away from home was difficult (Lindauer et al., 2016). Some family carers used respite as their preferable means for managing their caregiving-related challenges (Idura et al., 2016; Lethin et al., 2016). Generally, respite is used in briefly taking away caregiving responsibilities (de La Cuesta-Benjumea, 2011). Variation in its description, however, exists within the reviewed literature. According to Brunton et al. (2008), respite is described as a physical location, where care recipients reside in order for their carers to have a break, or a situation where caregiving responsibility is shifted to another person, such as a family member (Idura et al., 2018; Brunton et al., 2008). However, de La Cuesta-Benjumea (2011) described respite as a situation whereby family carers may separate themselves from their caregiving identity and briefly assume a different identity (de La Cuesta-Benjumea, 2011). This therefore suggests that achieving rest is possible without the need for family carers’ physical separation from their care recipients.
Alternative identities were achievable through mental isolation, whereby caregiving responsibilities were mentally paused by the family carer to give them an opportunity to explore other identities (de La Cuesta-Benjumea, 2011). As such, managing caregiving challenges was possible, regardless of the carer’s physical location (de La Cuesta-Benjumea, 2011). This may be useful in situations where a respite facility is unavailable or where there is a reluctance to place the care recipient away from home.
Discussion
The central focus of experiences was mainly negative, and broadly on family carers’ accounts of loss, burden, and grief. These experiences are reported in the wider literature as attributes commonly associated with general experiences of dementia caregiving. Some positive aspects of caregiving were also reported, including improvement in family interrelationships, and the family carers’ feeling of being useful and having a sense of meaning. An association between loss, burden, and grief of the caregiver exists, according to Meuser and Marwit (2001). The experience of these was not descriptive of all family carers’ narratives in this review. Furthermore, these are not the only dementia-caregiving related experiences, as a variety of other experiences, such as stress, anxiety, and depression are also reported in the wider literature (Blandin & Pepin, 2017; Chan et al., 2010; Adams & Sanders, 2004). The order of these experiences by the family carers, however, remains unclear.
Narratives of loss were explored from two different perspectives in this review. Firstly, it was described in relation to family carers’ unmet needs, as a loss of social roles and difficulty in fulfilling own needs. This was termed ‘personified loss’, as descriptions represented the family carers’ perception of own loss. The description of loss in terms of family carers’ own needs has been given in other studies. Brodaty and Donkin (2009) describe this in terms of social isolation which may result in a loss of meaning in life. Similar findings have also been reported in this current review, and it is suggested that this experience may worsen over time due to the possibility of emotional burden exposure from increased caregiving (Greenwood et al., 2019; Brodaty & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 1990).
Changes to the way of life were described by the family carers’ increased burden through caregiving responsibilities. Inability to socialise at this stage of dementia was viewed as a conflict between increased psychosocial distress and associated changes to caregiving focus. In relevance to this experience, the description of family carers’ personified loss may therefore be a precursor to a personified cost in terms of opportunities forfeited for accepting caregiving responsibilities. Hence, the likelihood of family carers’ personified loss being interpreted as a forfeited way of life rather than expressed as part of the normal progression of dementia caregiving is elevated.
Secondly, loss was also described as a caregiver-attributed value in relation to the care recipient’s changes and termed ‘personified value’ in this review. Dupuis (2002) identifies this as a detrimental attribute due to the possible closeness between the carer and the person cared for. This type of loss was further described in terms of ambiguity given that it acknowledges the absence of a valued personality (Dupuis, 2002; Boss, 1999; Jones & Martinson, 1992). In similarity to the findings by Dupuis (2002), evidence by Boss (1999), and Jones and Martinson (1992) suggest that family carers experience a state of loss where the person cared for was considered gone while still physically present. Similarity of findings in this review shows that although loss suggests a personified value, the view of the person cared for as ‘already gone’ while still alive was also shared.
The possibility of increasing family carers’ emotional hold to the personalities that remain is considerable, given the fear of losing personified value. Subsequently, holding on persists longer as a paradox where balancing “what remains” of the care recipient with “what is already lost” becomes difficult. As in other terminal conditions, evidence suggests that this experience, also referred to as anticipatory grief, is a pre-death response to the process of progressive decline in dementia (Pérez-González et al., 2021; Cheung et al., 2018; Blandin & Pepin, 2017; Meuser & Marwit, 2001). Thus, in cases where the realisation of dementia contributes to the early attribution of personified value, family carers’ fear of losing what remains may cause a higher level of grief in both stages of dementia.
The resolution of grief corresponds with family carers’ acceptance of own loss (Prigerson & Maciejewski, 2008). As an “emotional inability to accept the loss of something cherished”, non-acceptance results in grief and attributes such as guilt, frustration, and helplessness (Prigerson & Maciejewski, 2008, p.435). While grief may be described as a natural response to family carers’ loss, those who report higher levels of pre-death grief have a higher risk of health complications post-death (Shuter et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2010; Givens et al., 2011; Rando, 2000). The risk of health complications from earlier stages of the disease and possibly post-death may therefore increase. An early resolution of caregiver-attributed personified value is therefore necessary.
Grief was, however, not an experience reported by family carers who shared a historical hardship with the care recipient in this review. In commonality with other caregivers, holding on to personified value for longer was highlighted. While it is appropriately assumed that “something cherished” (Prigerson & Maciejewski, 2008, p.435) may refer to factors such as family carers’ own time, freedom, or care recipient’s value, as well as the identity shared as a result, the loss described may also be personified. Further research is, however, required for differentiating between a caregiver-attributed value of what remains and what is already lost to dementia, and its influence on the possible duration of prolonged after-death grieving.
It is further appropriate to also consider that, for most family carers, a grief-experience is reported through both stages of dementia irrespective of their relationship with the care recipient (Meuser & Marwit, 2001). As the care recipient declines, personified loss increases in line with the increased demand for the carers’ attention. Consequently, loss of personified value and family carers’ grief may also increase at both stages. The justification and determinants for balancing personified value against family carers’ personified loss are however, currently unclear. Given these findings, the issue of balancing family carers’ reported experiences against their reasons for continuing caregiving at both stages of the disease therefore arises. It is assumed that other factors may also be present in the family carers’ experiences, whereby powerlessness is felt in how future priorities are perceived and how the balance between personified value and personified loss may influence continued caregiving. This also calls for an understanding of a possible distress at choosing the right course of action to take in such situations (Oh & Gastmans, 2015; Silén, 2011; Jameton,1993; 1984).
Some gaps in current knowledge were also identified during this review. It was claimed that variation in family carers’ grief-experience across dementia stages increases with severity (Idura et al., 2018; Lindauer et al., 2016; Wladkowski, 2016; Adams & Sanders, 2004).
Moreover, a higher level of grief-experience is associated with the advanced stages (Adams & Sanders, 2004). Clarity is however required to determine whether a higher grief level at the advanced stage is resultant from a higher loss experienced from earlier stages.
Placement of caregiving expectations from different sources was suggested as a reason for an induced sense of obligation on family carers (Idura et al., 2018; Tretteteig et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2010). This varied according to the relationship between the family carers and their care recipients (Idura et al., 2018; Tretteteig et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2010), and serves as a factor which influenced behaviour (Tretteteig et al., 2017). While the possibility of negative outcomes was reported, the relationship between the family carers’ obligation and grief level remained unexplored. Although similarity of experience of holding on to care recipients’ personality was evidenced in the literature, an ambiguity remained between clear definition of what remains of the care recipient (Lindauer et al., 2016) and what was already lost to dementia (Adams & Sanders, 2004), as well as its influence on determining the duration of prolonged after-death grieving.
Implications
The impact of higher levels of pre-death grief in caregiving for someone with dementia is widely recognised in association with health complications post-death (Shuter et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2010; Givens et al., 2011). Although higher grief level is commonly attributed to the advanced stages, the possibility of attributing a personified value earlier in caregiving is evident from this review. For the family carer, the fear of losing care recipients’ personified value carries a higher level of grief in both stages, thereby increasing the risk of health complications earlier and possibly post-death. This may influence how home-based caregiving is viewed by family carers and their willingness to accept or continue caregiving responsibilities at home. Given a projected increase to over two million dementia family carers by 2051 (Knapp et al., 2014), the implication is therefore severe for sustaining home-based caregiving for people with moderate to advanced dementia in the UK.
Strengths and limitations of the review
The adoption of a narrative synthesis approach allowed for heterogeneity of evidence in this review. This approach may have contributed to the robustness of synthesised evidence. A difficulty in managing the scope of possible evidence was however high, as a large number of individual papers were checked for the inclusion criteria to be met. Many papers were found where the population of interest was either missing or incorrectly reported. This difficulty was further exacerbated by the inaccurate classification of some papers by their authors, thereby making both the screening stage and inclusion problematic from reading their abstracts. Variation of accounts contributes to how family carers’ experience of loss may be explored in future research. Given that some accounts used were extrapolated from a wider context of discussion within the reviewed literature, full justification of accounts may therefore be difficult (Polit & Beck, 2010). Generalisation of the findings at either of the moderate and advanced stages of dementia may also be difficult. However, the main purpose of any qualitative endeavour, such as this review, is to provide a rich understanding of people’s accounts. Polit and Beck (2010) highlight that the transferability of these accounts across clearly defined settings and contexts is therefore appropriate.
Conclusions and recommendations
Family carers’ descriptions of experiences at the moderate to advanced stages of dementia vary. Overall, accounts suggest that spending time with the person cared for enhances the acknowledgement of the illness experience by the family carer. Using a narrative synthesis approach, the findings of this review suggest that the level of understanding of the illness experience differs. A complete description of all experiences may therefore be inadequate in conveying an acknowledgement of the illness within home-based caregiving. Given accounts of burden, loss, grief, and dealing with challenges in making meaning show that increasing caregiving responsibilities increased the family carer’s difficulties, especially at the moderate stage. Understanding the experience of loss through to the advanced stages is also crucial. It is suggested that the caregiver-attributed personified value resulted in holding on to what remains of the care recipient for longer. Research is however required to understand whether this may lead to a higher grief experience from the moderate stage or earlier. Further research is also required to explore how family carers may proportionally balance their personified loss with their personified value earlier in the disease trajectory, given that the justification and determinants for balancing these, and whether distress to morals is felt, remains unclear.
Funding information
This review received no grant from any funding body.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for this review.
Data availability
Data supporting this review are included within the paper.
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Katherine Froggatt for her advice.
Footnotes
This version of the manuscript has been revised to update the tables and figure in line with the text to ensure clearer readability.
References
