🚨Home respite care: known by 3 caregivers out of 10, used by 3 out of 100
🔍💡 Caregiver respite: 36% express the need, and nearly half of them do not get enough, according to Drees. 🧭 Respite mainly relies on the surrounding support and the moments when the loved one can be alone; respite care and temporary accommodation remain marginal. Support to rethink information and identification on the ground.
📌 This document presents recent figures on a finding often based on intuition: respite is mainly lacking for those who help the most (personal care, mobility, 5 hours a day or more), for women and for parents of children with disabilities. It also shows that formal arrangements (respite care, temporary accommodation) are very little used, even when they are known. It can be used to argue for an action project with a funder, to target the identification of the most exposed caregivers, and to review how respite offers are presented to families.
Source :
📒 One in three daily caregivers expresses a need for respite, unmet for half of them
✍️ Benjamin Marteau — Directorate of Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics (Drees), Studies and Results collection, no. 1387. September 2026.📜🔗LINK to the source
1️⃣ Analytical summary
A need for respite that grows with the intensity of care and often remains unsatisfied
The study focuses on the 5.9 million informal caregivers who provide assistance in daily life to a person living at home in metropolitan France (p. 2). In 2022, 36% reported a need for respite, or 2.1 million people. This need rises from 22% among those who help for less than an hour a day to 65% beyond five hours, and reaches 53% when the assistance combines personal care and mobility (p. 2). It is more often expressed by women (41% compared to 30%) and by parent caregivers (51%) (p. 3). Among caregivers who express this need, 35% take a respite deemed insufficient and 14% take none at all (p. 3). The author reminds of the limitations: possible underestimation of the number of caregivers, scope limited to ordinary housing (p. 3, box 1).
Informal arrangements at the centre, formal systems little utilised
Respite primarily relies on moments when the relative can stay alone (52%) and on family or professionals at home (47%); care outside the home remains minority (21%) (p. 4-5, table 1). Among caregivers in constant supervision, only 2% have used respite care and 5% temporary care (p. 6, box 3). Only 28% of caregivers in need of respite say they know where to find information (p. 5). Expectations exceed respite: replacement in case of unforeseen events (34%), advice (25%), daily rest (21%), financial compensation (19%) (p. 6). For the field actor, this data serves to target and to argue, not to choose an intervention: the document does not provide any tools.
2️⃣ Key points of the document
1️⃣ The intensity of the assistance is the most visible factor.
The need for respite concerns about a quarter of caregivers who perform at most three tasks, compared to more than two thirds beyond eight tasks. Personal care (washing, meals, medication) is more associated with it than domestic tasks (p. 2, graphs 1 and 2).
2️⃣ A persistent gender gap with comparable characteristics.
Women more often report a need for respite and insufficient respite (39% compared to 29%). The author suggests, as a hypothesis, a possible effect of gender norms on the perception and reporting of the burden (p. 3).
3️⃣ Parents of children with disabilities, the most exposed group.
51% express a need for respite, and 55% of them do not get enough or none at all (40% + 15%). 80% live with the child being cared for. They rely more on reception structures, educational or social services (50%) (p. 3-5, graph 3, table 1).
4️⃣ Knowing a system is not enough to use it.
Among caregivers under constant supervision who express a need for respite, 29% know about respite care but 3% use it; 55% know about temporary care, 8% use it. The survey does not allow us to say whether the local offer is to blame (p. 4, p. 6, box 3).
5️⃣ Replacement in case of unforeseen events, the primary expectation when respite is lacking.
It is mentioned by 52% of caregivers with insufficient respite and 46% of those who do not take any. Without respite, maintaining friendly (23%) and family ties (20%) becomes more important, which the author reads as a risk of losing social connections (p. 7, graph 4).
3️⃣ Action points for local stakeholders
Points proposed by the sheet based on the findings; the Drees document makes no recommendations.
1️⃣ Target identification on situations with high levels of support.
Integrate two simple questions into the welcome interviews: number of hours of support per day and assistance with personal care or mobility. These are the markers most related to the need for respite in the study (p. 2, graphs 1-2).
2️⃣ Work on real access to respite care and temporary accommodation, not just their awareness.
The gap between knowledge and use (box 3, p. 6) invites gathering from caregivers the concrete barriers: cost, procedures, trust, local availability. The study does not measure them; a local diagnosis remains necessary (unmet need).
3️⃣ Organise replacement solutions for unforeseen events.
Ad-hoc replacement is the most cited expectation (34%, and 52% when respite is insufficient). Identify who can intervene quickly in the area and make this information visible to families (p. 6-7).
4️⃣ Adapt the information for the audiences who receive it the least.
Only 28% of caregivers in need of respite know where to find information; the less advantaged social categories and caregivers of a brother or sister are less well informed. Disseminate information through local channels, via professionals already present at home (p. 5).
5️⃣ Provide a specific support for parents of children with disabilities.
They accumulate high need and insufficient respite. The educational and medico-social establishments they already mobilise (50 %), can serve as a point of entry for information on respite (p. 3-5).
6️⃣ Integrate reconciliation with employment.
Working carers more often express a need for respite, and only 5 % have used a dedicated leave even though they are more familiar with it. Action with employers or HR services can be considered (p. 4-5).
4️⃣ Additional references
Practical Health References - Carers - https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/tag/aidants-pair-aidance-165
1️⃣ CNSA, Scientific Council — Opinion "Helping those who help: contributing to strengthening support for family carers" (June 2025).
Opinion adopted on 13 March 2025. It addresses the offer of respite (day care, temporary accommodation, home respite, holiday-respite stays) and recommends clarifying the terminology and diversifying the home offer. Institutional complement to findings of non-use.cnsa.fr — opinion of the Scientific Council (PDF)
2️⃣ Ministries of Solidarity / Autism House — Practical sheet "Where to find support and respite as a family carer?" (published online Sept. 2025 according to the URL; date not indicated in the document).
Public support: types of respite, support and respite platforms, family carer leave, allowances (AJPA, APA, PCH, AEEH). Directly usable for family orientation. maisondelautisme.gouv.fr — practical sheet (PDF)
3️⃣ Health.fr — Practical sheet "Burnout of the caregiver, who to contact ?" (published on 2 June 2025, updated on 6 July 2026).
Guidance by type of need (fatigue, respite, peers, training, holidays, reconciliation with work), source CNSA. Addresses the issue of information raised p. 5. health.fr — practical sheet
5️⃣ Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
1️⃣ What does the word "respite" cover in this study?
A broad sense: any time of pause in care, whether it comes from a formal system, from family or from moments when the relative can be alone. The need is what the caregiver declares, whether they use a system or not (p. 2, box 2 p. 3).
2️⃣ How many caregivers are concerned?
36 % of the 5.9 million daily caregivers, or 2.1 million people in 2022. The figure may be underestimated, because caregivers are identified by the person being helped (p. 2-3).
3️⃣ Which caregivers should be prioritised?
Those who assist with personal care and mobility (53 %), those who help 5 hours a day or more (65 %), parents of children with disabilities (51 %) and women (41 %) (p. 2-3).
4️⃣ Why are respite and temporary care so underused?
The study notes the gap between knowledge and use without measuring the cause. It cites other works that mention administrative, financial or accessibility constraints (p. 4, p. 6).
5️⃣ Do the APA, PCH or AEEH aids make any difference?
Carers of beneficiaries more often use external structures (32% vs 19%) and third parties (66% vs 43%). These services can finance part of the respite (p. 5, table 1).
6️⃣ Does part-time work reduce the need for respite?
No, according to this data: part-time carers more often report a need for respite (42%) than full-time carers (35%), but consider it somewhat more often sufficient (51% vs 46%) (p. 4).
7️⃣ What do carers expect, beyond respite?
First, a replacement in case of unforeseen events (34%), then advice (25%), daily rest (21%), a replacement for holidays (20%), financial compensation (19%), psychological support (17%) (p. 6, graph 4).
6️⃣ Rewriting in Easy to Read and Understand (FALC)
What is this document about?
A carer helps a relative every day.
This relative is elderly, ill, or disabled.
Respite is a moment of pause for the carer.
Drees asked questions to carers in 2022.
Drees is a state statistics service.
What the study shows
One in three carers says they need breaks.
One in two among them does not have enough breaks.
Some carers have no breaks.
The longer the care lasts, the greater the need for a break.
Helping with washing or eating is very tiring.
Women more often request breaks.
Parents of a disabled child often need breaks.
How carers take breaks
Often, the relative is left alone for a while.
Often, the family or a professional comes to help at home.
There are services to replace the carer.
Example : a person comes to look after the relative at home.
Example : the relative goes for a few days to a care facility.
Few carers use these services.
Many carers do not know where to find information.
What carers ask for
To be replaced when there is an unexpected problem.
To receive advice.
To take a break every day.
To be replaced to go on holiday.
To talk with other carers or with a psychologist.
To keep time for their friends and family.
7️⃣ Cross-sectional analysis — Values of Health Practices
Literacy : the document does not provide a suitable tool; it notes that only 28 % of carers in need of respite know where to find information, with gaps according to social category (p. 5).
Empowerment : carers are asked about their needs and expectations (graph 4, p. 6), but do not participate in the design or evaluation of the study.
Participation : no co-construction mechanism is described; participation in discussion groups (6 %) and training (4 %) is measured as a finding (p. 5-6).
Community health : the collective dimension appears indirectly, through the central role of the entourage in respite and by the risk of loss of social connection (p. 4-7).
Ethics : biases are identified: under-reporting of caregivers by the care recipients, and possible effect of gender norms on the reporting of the burden (p. 3).
Human rights: the study is based on the "right to respite" enshrined in the ASV law of 2015 and documents inequalities in access according to gender, family link and social category (p. 1, p. 5).
Intersectorality : the medical-social sector, school, employment (caregiver leave) and information agencies (MDPH, CAF, respite platforms) are mentioned, without recommendation for partnership (p. 4-5).
Partnership : no collaboration model is formalised; the study is descriptive.
Fight against discrimination: gender and social inequalities are explicitly analysed (p. 3, p. 5); non-judgment is not addressed, which is consistent with the statistical nature of the document.
8️⃣ Evaluation of the reliability of the resource
Scientific relevance: high for a public statistical source. National survey by the Drees, detailed field and questions (box 1), regression models to control for structural effects (note 6, p. 3), bibliography of 11 references (p. 7). Limitations noted by the author or raised here: declarative data from 2022 published in 2026 ; field limited to metropolitan France and ordinary housing ; need for respite measured for a single cared-for relative ; supplementary tables not included in the PDF ; statistical associations, without established causal link. A typo makes a sentence on p. 5 difficult to read (“that their frequency increases with the age of the child”).
Operational relevance : indirect. The document provides useful numerical benchmarks to target the identification, argue a project or a call for projects, and objectify the non-use. It does not propose any tools or intervention methods; it is best used with a recommendations document (HAS 2024) or a guidance manual.
9️⃣ Strategic hashtags
#healthpractices #Carers #CarerRespite #Prevention #LossOfIndependence #Disability #NonUse #PublicHealth
You can support Health Practices: https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/annonces-28/pour-soutenir-pratiques-en-sante-3253
This article was developed in accordance with the Charter
for the use of artificial intelligence of Health Practices.
Click on the image 