背景：家庭照顧者在長期照護領域中扮演著重要的角色，喘息服務是支撐照顧者的重要措施之一。目的：探討家庭照顧者使用喘息服務的效益。方法：採橫斷性問卷調查研究，利用家庭照顧者效益量表及使用滿意度量表，收集南部某縣市用過喘息服務的150位家庭照顧者的資料。結果：家庭照顧者對喘息服務的滿意度方面，居家喘息(得分指標為78.21)及機構喘息(得分指標為75.63)，兩者間沒有顯著差異；使用「居家式喘息服務」之家庭照顧者，所感受到的滿意度依序為：可接受性、負擔性、適度性、可近性及可用性；「機構式喘息服務」之家庭照顧者的滿意度高低排序為：可接受性和適度性一樣、可近性、可用性、負擔性。但機構式喘息服務在可負擔性層面之滿意度較居家喘息低(t = 2.235, p = .027)。喘息對家庭照顧者的效益指標分數為66.17，「時間效益」為75.60，「照顧生活品質效益」為63.91，前者顯著高於後者(t = -11.516, p < .001)。結論/實務應用：喘息服務對家庭照顧者確實是有效益的。喘息服務在家庭照顧者效益部分，時間效益高於照顧生活品質效益，且居家式與機構式喘息服務的滿意度得分指標都在75以上。未來應增加喘息服務的補助經費，以落實家庭照顧者規律使用週休一日的喘息；並發展多元化的喘息服務型態或時段，更符合以家庭照顧者需求為中心的彈性化服務。

Background: Family caregivers play a key role in long‐term care. Respite care is an important strategy that supports these caregivers. Objective: This study explores the benefits to family caregivers of respite care. Method: A cross‐sectional survey was conducted. This study used the Scale of Benefits for Family Caregivers and the Service Satisfaction Scale to collect data from 150 family caregivers living in a city in southern Taiwan who had previously accessed respite care. Results: The analysis of participant satisfaction with respite care found no significant difference between hometype care (satisfaction index score = 78.21) and institutional‐type care (satisfaction index score = 75.63). Participants who had accessed home‐type care expressed their greatest satisfaction with the “acceptability” of this care type, followed by “affordability,” “accommodation,” “accessibility,” and “availability”. Participants who had accessed institutional‐type care expressed their greatest satisfaction with “acceptability” and “accommodation” (equal scores), followed by “accessibility,” “availability,” and “affordability”. The lowest overall level of satisfaction was assigned to “affordability” by participants in the institutional‐type care category (t = 2.235, p = .027). The benefit index score for respite care was 66.17, the “time benefit” index score was 75.60, and the “living quality benefit” index score was 63.91. The former is significantly higher than the latter (t = ‐11.516, p < .001). Conclusions / Implications: This study confirms the significant benefit to family caregivers of respite care and supports that the time benefit of this care is greater than the living‐quality benefit. The satisfaction indexes for both participant categories exceeded 75. Results support that the relevant administrative authorities should allocate greater funding to support respite care services in order to allow family caregivers to regularly take one day off each week. Furthermore, diversified options and service hours for respite care should be offered in order to provide greater access flexibility for caregivers and to make respite care increasingly demand‐driven.