Religiosity and quality of life: a dyadic perspective of individuals with dementia and their caregivers

Abstract

Objectives: Dyadic coping theory purports the benefit of joint coping strategies within a couple, or dyad, when one dyad member is faced with illness or stress. We examine the effect of religiosity on well-being for individuals with dementia (IWDs). In particular, we look at the effect of both dyad members’ religiosity on perceptions of IWDs’ quality of life (QoL). Neither of these issues has been extensively explored.

Method: One hundred eleven individuals with mild-to-moderate dementia and their family caregivers were interviewed to evaluate IWDs’ everyday-care values and preferences, including religious preferences. Using an actor–partner multi-level model to account for the interdependent relationship of dyads, we examined how IWD and caregiver ratings of religiosity (attendance, prayer, and subjective ratings of religiosity) influence perceptions of IWDs’ QoL.

Results: After accounting for care-related stress, one's own religiosity is not significantly related to IWDs’ or caregivers’ perceptions of IWD QoL. However, when modeling both actor and partner effects of religiosity on perceptions of IWDs’ QoL, caregivers’ religiosity is positively related to IWDs’ self-reports of QoL, and IWDs’ religiosity is negatively associated with caregivers’ perceptions of IWDs’ QoL.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that religiosity of both the caregiver and the IWD affect perception of the IWD's QoL. It is important that caregivers understand IWDs’ values concerning religion as it may serve as a coping mechanism for dealing with dementia.

Keywords:

• caregiving
• care preferences
• religiosity
• dementia

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the staff members at the Margaret Blenkner Research Institute of the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging who have worked on the dyad research team and to the families who participated in this study.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Administration on Aging [grant number 90CG2566]; The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; The AARP Andrus Foundation; The Retirement Research Foundation; The National Institute of Aging [grant number P50 AG08012]; and The National Institute of Mental Health [grant number R01070629].