» Articles » PMID: 35191980

The Impact of Care Intensity and Work on the Mental Health of Family Caregivers: Losses and Gains

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: We estimate the causal impact of intensive caregiving, defined as providing at least 80 h of care per month, and work on the mental health of caregivers while considering possible sources of endogeneity in these relationships.

Methods: We use 2 linked data sources from the United States by matching caregivers in the National Study of Caregiving with corresponding care recipients in the National Health and Aging Trends Study for years 2011-2017. We address possible sources of endogeneity in the relationships between caregiving, work, and mental health by using instrumental variables methodology, instrumenting for both caregiving and work behavior. We examine 2 measures used to screen for depression (PHQ-2, psychodiagnostic test) and anxiety (GAD-2, generalized anxiety disorders screening instrument), a composite measure that combines these measures (PHQ-4), and positive well-being variables to ascertain possible gains from caregiving.

Results: Providing at least 80 h of care per month to a parent compared to less intensive caregiving increases the PHQ-4 scale for anxiety and depression disorders. This is driven by the screening score for anxiety and not psychodiagnostic test scores for depression. Relationship quality decreases substantially for intensive caregivers, and intensive caregiving leads to less satisfaction that the care recipient is well-cared for. We do not find offsetting mental health gains for intensive caregivers compared to nonintensive caregivers. Work does not independently affect the mental health of caregivers.

Discussion: Caregiver interventions that reduce objective demands or support intensive caregivers could reduce or prevent well-being losses and improve the caregiver's relationship with the recipient.

Citing Articles

How are location and type of caring associated with the carer's mental health? Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings from SHARE.

Schaps V, Hansen T, Nes R, Wahrendorf M Eur J Ageing. 2025; 22(1):5.

PMID: 39984781 PMC: 11845335. DOI: 10.1007/s10433-025-00843-3.


Development and Delivery of Enhanced Implementation Support to Disseminate a National Caregiver Skills Training Program.

Hughes J, Makaroun L, Decosimo K, Tucker M, Dadolf J, Drake C Innov Aging. 2025; 9(1):igae107.

PMID: 39872410 PMC: 11771185. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igae107.


Food for thought: more explicit guidance for inclusion of caregiver perspectives in health technology assessment.

Bourke S, Skedgel C, Marti-Gil Y, Neumann P, Garrison L, Benham-Hermetz S Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024; 40(1):e77.

PMID: 39663941 PMC: 11703619. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462324004690.


The Unseen Shift: How Partnership Long-term Care Insurance Influences Caregiving Among Older Adults.

Zai X J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2024; 79(12).

PMID: 39367680 PMC: 11638482. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbae168.


Implementation outcomes from a multi-site stepped wedge cluster randomized family caregiver skills training trial.

Van Houtven C, Decosimo K, Drake C, Bruening R, Sperber N, Dadolf J Health Serv Res. 2024; 59(6):e14361.

PMID: 39118405 PMC: 11622292. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.14361.


References
1.
Kolodziej I, Garcia-Gomez P . Saved by retirement: Beyond the mean effect on mental health. Soc Sci Med. 2019; 225:85-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.003. View

2.
LaVela S, Ather N . Psychological health in older adult spousal caregivers of older adults. Chronic Illn. 2010; 6(1):67-80. DOI: 10.1177/1742395309356943. View

3.
Penning M, Wu Z . Caregiver Stress and Mental Health: Impact of Caregiving Relationship and Gender. Gerontologist. 2015; 56(6):1102-1113. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnv038. View

4.
Van Houtven C, Coe N, Skira M . The effect of informal care on work and wages. J Health Econ. 2012; 32(1):240-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.10.006. View

5.
Mackenzie A, Greenwood N . Positive experiences of caregiving in stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34(17):1413-22. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2011.650307. View