**4. Evaluation of the systems in the three evaluation moments**

Dependence of the elderly during activities of daily living (ADL).

In the core, the Mann–Whitney test shows a significant difference (p = 0.089) between the IG and CG regarding the ADL at T3. The difference in medians increased at T3 to 0.8, with the CG showing a significantly lower value than the IG. There is a difference in the total ADL, with a relevant variation in the medians at T3: the median in the IG increases from 47 at T2 to 53 at T3, and the CG median decreases from 43 to 24; it was verified that the level of dependence in the CG decreased from very dependent to little dependent.

#### **4.1 Social support**

In the LR, the support hours received by the participants increased with time in the IG and decreased in the CG, but there are no statistically significant differences. The IG shows a positive progression of the medians: from 6.5 to 7, between T1 and T3; the CG shows a negative progression of the medians: from 6 to 5, between T1 and T3.

The chi-square test shows statistically significant differences (p = 0.077) between the IG and CG at T3 regarding "who receives support," with the IG receiving more home support. The percentage of support received by caregivers is higher in the IG at the different moments of T1, T2, and T3.

Over time, support hours received by the participants increased in the IG and decreased in the CG. The support provided by the home support center increased for the IG and decreased for the CG. The activity that needs the most support is hygiene care, which increased for the IG and remained the same for the CG throughout the study.

The percentage of caregivers who pay for the support received is lower in all cases in the CG and decreased at T3 in both groups.

#### **4.2 Daily time dedicated to care**

Statistically significant differences (P = 0.071) were observed in the NLD with the chi-square test, in the physiological variable at time T2, in the number of hours of care per day, with the IG showing differences when compared to the CG regarding the caregivers who provide care for more than five hours a day.

#### **4.3 Burden**

At T1, statistically significant differences in the tests applied to total burden. At T1, the IG and CG groups showed the greatest difference in the median (59 and 51 respectively), with statistically significant differences. The initial differences decrease at T2 and T3, subsequently converging. While the IG decreased the burden between T1 and T2 and maintained the value at T3, the CG results remained the same between T1–T2 and increased at T3. The intervention group had more evident differences, but these differences decreased over the course of the study.

At T1, there were statistically significant differences in the "Expectations of care" category, whose initial values were higher in the IG, and the burden was higher in the IG. However, this initial difference decreased over time (T2 and T3). Nevertheless, it should be noted that over time (T1–T3) they decreased in the IG, while they increased over the same period in the CG. Perceived self-efficacy remained the same at T2 in the IG and decreased in the CG. Over time, it decreased more in the CG than in the IG.

#### **4.4 Coping**

**Table 2** shows an increase in the coping value (CAMI scale) in the IG when compared to the CG (differences of 5.4 and 4.2 respectively) between moments T1 and T2, meaning that there was an increase in coping after the intervention. At T3, the differences were statistically significant between the two groups after a decrease in the 2 groups. However, this decrease was more prominent in the CG (differences of 14.1 between T2 and T3 in the CG and 6.5 in the IG).

The results show that the intervention group (IG) increased coping and decreased burden compared to the control group (CG). After six months, both groups had decreased coping, but its reduction was lower in the intervention group compared to the control group, with statistically significant differences. The intervention group slightly decreased the burden, while the control group increased it.


*Safety in the Home Care Environment of Families Caring for the Elderly DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107862*

**Table**

 **2.** *Differences in the two client systems at the three evaluation moments (CAMI scale).*
