Skip to main content
. 2014 Feb 20;14:23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-23

Table 3.

Significant predictors of institutionalization at a follow-up time of 2.5 years

Variable
Bivariate predictor analysis
Binary logistic regressiona
  Institutionalization yes
Institutionalization no
Test value P Regression coefficient B Standard error Wald P
n = 32 (12%)
n = 237 (88%)
n (n%) or mean (SD) n (n%) or mean (SD)
Living situation:
 
 
Χ2 = 6.59
.015
−1.60
.52
9.41
.002
- togetherb
15 (8%)
165 (92%)
 
 
 
 
 
 
- separately
17 (19%)
72 (81%)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Caregiver burdenc
13.7 (9.0)
9.3 (7.8)
T = −2.89
.004
.07
.03
7.38
.007
Care-receiver’s age (years)
84.4 (7.0)
79.2 (6.2)
T = −4.20
< .001
.09
.03
7.34
.007
MMSEd
17.4 (3.2)
19.0 (3.8)
T = 2.68
.010
-.14
.06
5.87
.015
Caregiver’s age (years)
63.1 (11.2)
58.6 (13.7)
T = −2.07
.044
.03
.02
2.57
.109
Region:
 
 
Χ2 = 4.56
.046
.72
.48
2.26
.133
- urbane
10 (21%)
38 (79%)
 
 
 
 
 
 
- rural 21 (10%) 193 (90%)            

n = 269 cases; 351 cases of the total sample less 82 care-receivers who died at home.

aChi2 = 41.36 (p < .001); Nagelkerke’s R2 = .283 (none of the 6 potential predictors had to be excluded from the multivariate analysis due to multicollinearity).

bFamily caregiver and care-receiver with dementia share a flat or house.

cScore of the BSFC-s.

dMini-Mental Status Examination.

eUrban region: cities with at least 100,000 citizens; rural region: cities with less than 100,000 citizens and villages.

Other variables were not significantly correlated with institutionalization: study arm (p = .500); sex of family caregiver (p = .527); caregiver spouse yes/no (p = .434); sex of care-receiver with dementia (p = .538); NOSGER subscale “Disturbing behavior” (p = .073); NOSGER subscale “IADL” (p = .257); family caregiver diagnosed with depression yes/no (p = .696); care level yes/no (p = .249); Barthel Index (p = .737); caregiving tasks at night yes/no (p = .532); average hours of daily care (p = .389).