The psychological effects of providing personal care to a partner: a multidimensional perspective
The expected increasing demand for infor mal care in aging societies underscores the importance of understanding the psychological implications of caregiving. This study explores the effect of providing regular help with per sonal care to a partner on different aspects of psychological well-being. We use cross-sec tional data from the Norwegian Life Course, Ageing and Generation study (n. ~15,000; age 40-84) and two-wave panel data from the Norwegian study on Life Course, Ageing and Generation (n. ~3000; age 40-84). To separate the effects of providing care from those of the partner’s disability, caregivers are contrasted with non-caregivers with both disabled and nondisabled partners. We separate outcomes into cognitive well-being (life satisfaction), psychological functioning (self-esteem, mas tery), and affective well-being (happiness, depression, loneliness). Findings show that caregiving has important cross-sectional and longitudinal detrimental psychological effects. These effects are fairly consistent across all aspects of well-being, demonstrating that care giving has a broad-based negative impact. Among women, however, these effects are sim ilar to if not weaker than the effects of a part ner’s disability. Caregiving effects are constant by age, education, and employment status, but stronger among caregivers with health prob lems. Providing personal care to a partner is associated with marked adverse psychological effects for men and women irrespective of age and socio-economic status. Hence, no socio demographic group is immune from caregiv ing stress, so programs should be targeted gen erally. The results also suggest that the health needs of caregivers demand more attention.
1. Marks NF, Lambert JD, Choi HJ. Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective US national study. J Marriage Fam 2002;64:657-67.
2. Eurostat. Active ageing and solidarity between generations: a statistical portrait of the European Union 2012. Availablee from: http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EP-11-001/EN/KS-EP-11-001-EN.PDF.
3. OECD. Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD; 2011.
4. Huber M, Rodrigues R, Hoffman F, et al. Facts and figures on long-term care: Europe and North America. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research; 2009.
5. Daatland SO, Herlofson K, Lima I. Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe. Ageing Soc 2011;31:1159-79.
6. Gautun H, Werner A, Luras H. Care challenges for informal caregivers of chronically ill lung patients: results from a questionnaire survey. Scand J Public Health 2011;40:18-24.
7. Cheung J, Hocking P. Caring as worrying: the experience of spousal carers. J Adv Nurs 2004;47:475-82.
8. Rostgaard T, Szebehely M. Changing policies, changing patterns of care: Danish and Swedish home care at the crossroads. Eur J Ageing 2012;9:101-9.
9. Daatland SO, Lowenstein A. Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare balance. Eur J Ageing 2005;2:174-82.
10. Ekwall AK, Hallberg IR. The association between caregiving satisfaction, difficulties and coping among older family caregivers. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:832-44.
11. Grant G, Nolan M. Informal carers: sources and concomitants of satisfaction. Health Soc Care Comm 1993;1:147-59.
12. Toljamo M, Perala ML, Laukkala H. Impact of caregiving on Finnish family caregivers. Scand J Caring Sci 2012;26:211-18.
13. Marks NF, Bumpass L, Jun HJ. Family roles and well-being during the middle life course. In: Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler R, eds. How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2004. pp 514-549.
14. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 1999;125:276-302.
15. Ryff CD, Love GD, Urry HL, et al. Psychological well-being and ill-being: do they have distinct or mirrored biological correlates? Psychother Psychosom 2006;75:85-95.
16. Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;71:616-28.
17. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 1984;95:542-75.
18. Michalos AC. Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Soc Ind Res 1985;16:347-413.
19. Bowling A. Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
20. Pearlin L, Menaghan E, Lieberman M, Mullan J. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav 1981;22:337-56.
21. Hansen T. Subjective well-being in the second half of life: the influence of family and household resources. PhD dissertation. University of Oslo; 2010.
22. Mirowsky J, Ross CE. Social causes of psychological distress. 2nd ed. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 2003.
23. Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:112-28.
24. Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 2003;18:250-67.
25. Kramer BJ. Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next? Gerontologist 1997;37:218-32.
26. Marks NF. Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family conflict, and midlife well-being. J Marriage Fam 1998;60:951-66.
27. Borg C, Hallberg IR. Life satisfaction among informal caregivers in comparison with non-caregivers. Scand J Caring Sci 2006;20:427-38.
28. Hansen T, Slagsvold B, Ingebretsen R. The strains and gains of caregiving: an examination of the effects of providing personal care to a parent on a range of psychological outcomes. Soc Ind Res 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
29. Winqvist M. Individualisering, utvärdering och utveckling av anhörigstöd. En kunskapsöversikt. Kalmar: Nationellt kompetenscentrum Anhöriga; 2010.
30. Carmichael F, Charles S. The opportunity costs of informal care: does gender matter? J Health Econ 2003;22:781-803.
31. Romøren TI. Den fjerde alder. Funksjonstap, familieomsorg og tjenestebruk hos mennesker over 80 år. Oslo: Gyldendal; 2001.
32. Mencarini L, Sironi M. Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. Eur Sociol Rev 2012;28:203-19.
33. Keilman N, Christiansen S. Norwegian elderly less likely to live alone in the future. Eur J Popul 2010;26:47-72.
34. Vikat A, Speder Z, Beets G, et al. Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demogr Res 2007;17:389-439.
35. Pavot W, Diener E, Colvin CR, Sandvik E. Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being. J Pers Ass 1991;57:149-61.
36. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: University Press; 1965.
37. Pearlin L, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 1978;19:2-21.
38. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;1:385-401.
39. de Jong-Gierveld J, van Tilburg T. Manual of the loneliness scale. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit; 1999.
40. Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991.
41. Tucker KL, Ozer DJ, Lyubomirsky S, Boehm JK. Testing for measurement invariance in the Satisfaction with Life Scale: a comparison of Russians and North Americans. Soc Ind Res 2006;78:341-60.
42. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Ass 1985;49:71-5.
43. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220-33.
44. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P. How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Econ J 2004;114:641-59.
45. Johnson D. Two-wave panel analysis: comparing statistical methods for studying the effects of transitions. J Marriage Fam 2005;67:1061-75.
46. Umberson D, Chen MCD, House JS, et al. The effect of social relationships on psychological well-being: are men and women really so different? Am Sociol Rev 1996;61:837-57.
47. Worell J. Encyclopedia of women and gender: sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001.
48. Braakman N. The consequences of own and spousal disability on labor market outcomes and subjective well-being: evidence from Germany. Rev Econ Household [In press].
49. Winkelmann R, Winkelmann L. Happiness and unemployment: a panel data analysis for Germany. Konjunkturpolitik 1995;41:293-307.
50. Yorgason JB, Booth A, Johnson D. Health, disability, and marital quality: is the association different for younger versus older cohorts?Res Aging 2008;30:623-48.
51. Lima JC, Allen SM, Goldscheider F, Intrator O. Spousal caregiving in late midlife versus older ages: implications of work and family obligations. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2008;63:229-38.
52. Marcus J. The effect of unemployment on the mental health of spouses: evidence from plant closures in Germany. Berlin: DIW; 2012.
53. Knabe A, Schöb R, Weimann J. Partnership, gender roles and the well-being cost of unemployment. Magdeburg: Magdeburg University; 2012.
54. McKee L, Bell C. His unemployment, her problem: the domestic and marital consequences of male unemployment. In: Allen S, Waton S, Purcell K, Wood S, eds. The experience of unemployment. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1986.
55. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1991.