IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v9y2000i1p47-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcome Indicators for Direct and Indirect Caregiving

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah Perry Schoenfelder
  • Elizabeth A. Swanson
  • Janet K. Pringle Specht
  • Meridean Maas
  • Marion Johnson

    (University of Iowa College of Nursing)

Abstract

Informal caregiving and outcomes for caregiving are an important part of health care and of particular importance in nursing. The purpose of this research is to report the results of a survey mailed to nursing experts for validation of the outcome labels Caregiver Role Performance: Direct Care and Caregiver Role Performance: Indirect Care and their accompanying indicators. Experts were asked to rate how important the identified indicators were for assessing those two outcomes. In addition, the respondents were asked to what extent nursing interventions influence the achievement of each identified indicator for Caregiver Role Performance: Direct Care and Caregiver Role Performance: Indirect Care. In general, the validity of the concept analysis work by the caregiver focus group was supported. Ten indicators for Caregiver Performance: Direct Care were retained, 1 was dropped that was considered most appropriate for indirect care, and 3 new indicators were added to reflect the nurse experts surveyed. For Caregiver Performance: Indirect Care, all of the indicators were retained.

Suggested Citation

  • Deborah Perry Schoenfelder & Elizabeth A. Swanson & Janet K. Pringle Specht & Meridean Maas & Marion Johnson, 2000. "Outcome Indicators for Direct and Indirect Caregiving," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 9(1), pages 47-69, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:9:y:2000:i:1:p:47-69
    DOI: 10.1177/10547730022158438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10547730022158438
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10547730022158438?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:9:y:2000:i:1:p:47-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.