Table 3.
Role of respite cottages in supporting dyads
|
Cottage 1 (n = 68) |
Cottage 2 (n = 58) |
Combined (n = 126) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of cottage respite in helping to continue caring at home (% carers) a | (n = 68) | (n = 58) | (n = 126) |
| Not helpful | |||
| 1–3 | 1.5% (1) | 0.0% (0) | 0.8% (1) |
| 4–6 | 5.9% (4) | 3.5% (2) | 4.8% (6) |
| Helpful | |||
| 7–10 | 92.6% (63) | 96.5% (55) | 93.6% (118) |
| Did not answer question | 0.0% (0) | 1.7% (1) | 0.8% (1) |
| Role of cottage respite in delaying placement for the CRs moved into permanent carea | (n = 37) | (n = 29) | (n = 66) |
| Limited role | |||
| 1–3 | 35.1% (13) | 24.1% (7) | 30.3% (20) |
| 4–6 | 0.0% (0) | 10.3% (3) | 4.5% (3) |
| Definite role | |||
| 7–10 | 43.2% (16) | 58.6% (17) | 50% (33) |
| Did not answer question | 21.6% (8) | 6.9% (2) | 15.1% (10) |
| Carers' estimate of placement delay attributable to cottage respite | (n = 19)b | (n = 15)c | (n = 34) |
| Months, mean (range) | 15.3 (6–60) | 16.0 (6–72) | 15.6 |
| Carers who provided no estimate of delay but gave other reasons for doing so | (n = 18) | (n = 14) | (n = 32) |
| Helpful in delay, but no time given | 22.2% (4) | 28.6% (4) | 25% (8) |
| Carer health issue | 11.1% (2) | 7.1% (1) | 9.4% (3) |
| CR health issue | 27.8% (5) | 14.3% (2) | 21.9% (7) |
| CR and carer health issues | 5.5% (1) | 21.4% (3) | 12.5% (4) |
| Early stage dementia | 0.0% (0) | 14.3% (2) | 6.25% (2) |
| Used cottage late in progression | 5.5% (1) | 0.0% (0) | 3.1% (1) |
| RACF place became available | 11.1% (2) | 0.0% (0) | 6.25% (2) |
| HP urged placement | 11.1% (2) | 7.1% (1) | 9.4% (3) |
| Ambiguous response | 5.5% (1) | 7.1% (1) | 6.25% (2) |
Abbreviations: CR, care recipient; HP, health professional; RACF, residential aged care facility. Refer to Table 1 for associated survey questions.
a
Likert scale responses.
b
A total of 37 eligible to answer: 19 time‐based answers provided, 18 did not specify.
c
A total of 29 eligible to answer: 15 time‐based answers provided, 14 did not specify.