Understanding and Measuring the Wellbeing of Carers of People With Dementia

Background and Objectives  To determine how the wellbeing of carers of people with dementia is understood and measured in contemporary health research.  Research Design and Methods  A systematic review of reviews was designed, registered with PROSPERO, and then conducted. This focused on systematic reviews of research literature published from 2010 onwards; with the wellbeing of carers of people with dementia being a primary focus. N = 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal was conducted using the AMSTAR tool (2015). A narrative synthesis was conducted to explore how wellbeing is currently being understood and measured.  Results  Contemporary health research most frequently conceptualizes wellbeing in the context of a loss–deficit model. Current healthcare research has not kept pace with wider discussions surrounding wellbeing which have become both more complex and more sophisticated. Relying on the loss–deficit model limits current research in understanding and measuring the lived experience of carers of people with dementia. There remains need for a clear and consistent measurement of wellbeing.  Discussion and Implications  Without clear consensus, health professionals must be careful when using the term “wellbeing”. To help inform healthcare policy and practice, we offer a starting point for a richer concept of wellbeing in the context of dementia that is multi-faceted to include positive dimensions of caregiving in addition to recognized aspects of burden. Standardized and robust measurements are needed to enhance research and there may be benefit from developing a more mixed, blended approach to measurement

Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research: A Critical Review

This paper critically reviews commentaries on the evaluation and promotion of qualitative management research. The review identifies two disjunctures: between methodological prescriptions for epistemologically diverse criteria and management journal prescriptions for standardized criteria; and between the culturally dependent production of criteria and their positioning in editorials and commentaries as normative and objective. The authors’ critical social constructionist analysis surfaces underlying positivist assumptions and institutional processes in these commentaries, which they argue are producing (inappropriate) homogeneous evaluation criteria for qualitative research, marginalizing alternative perspectives, and disciplining individual qualitative researchers into particular normative practices. The authors argue that interventions to encourage more qualitative research need to focus as much on editorial, disciplinary and institutional practices as the practices of individual researchers, and they make recommendations for changes that may allow qualitative management research to develop in a more supportive context by recognizing philosophical diversity as legitimate