Variability in spousal perceptions of caregiving and its relationship to older caregiver health outcomes.
Journal: 2018/November - Journal of General Internal Medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Abstract:
BACKGROUND
The transition to later-life caregiving roles, especially for couples caring for each other, can be rife with ambiguity. The incident discordance in spousal perceptions of one another's role and its relationship to mental health outcomes have not been well-described.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To describe the range of daily agreement between older adult spouses' perceptions of care given and care received; (2) to explore associations between caregiving agreement and daily caregiver depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction; and (3) to evaluate differential effects for male and female caregivers.
METHODS
Cross-sectional, ecological assessment (daily diary).
METHODS
Sample of 191 couples aged 60-64 (total 5196 daily surveys) drawn from the longitudinal Life and Family Legacies study.
METHODS
During 2011-2012, spouses independently completed 14 consecutive daily surveys about their mood, marital interactions, and support exchanges. Caregiving agreement was defined as the daily ratio of spouse-reported care received to self-reported care given. Using generalized linear mixed effect modeling, we examined associations between spousal care agreement and outcomes of depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction.
RESULTS
Sample data demonstrated broad variability in spousal agreement, with couples exhibiting substantial disagreement on nearly one-third of couple days (780/2598 days). On days where care was exchanged, higher caregiving agreement was associated with lower caregiver depression (p < 0.01) and anxiety (p < 0.01) in male caregivers, and higher marital satisfaction (p = 0.03) in female caregivers. When care recipients reported receiving more support than their spouse reported giving, these associations did not persist.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings suggest that spousal agreement about the amount of care given and received varies broadly and is an important consideration for primary care providers who counsel these patients day-to-day. Furthermore, agreement appears to predict mental health and relationship outcomes and should be further evaluated in this growing population of mid-to-late life adults emerging into caregiving.
Relations:
Content
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
J Gen Intern Med 33(9): 1504-1511

Variability in spousal perceptions of caregiving and its relationship to older caregiver health outcomes

Abstract

Background

The transition to later-life caregiving roles, especially for couples caring for each other, can be rife with ambiguity. The incident discordance in spousal perceptions of one another’s role and its relationship to mental health outcomes have not been well-described.

Objectives

(1) To describe the range of daily agreement between older adult spouses’ perceptions of care given and care received; (2) to explore associations between caregiving agreement and daily caregiver depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction; and (3) to evaluate differential effects for male and female caregivers.

Design

Cross-sectional, ecological assessment (daily diary).

Participants

Sample of 191 couples aged 60–64 (total 5196 daily surveys) drawn from the longitudinal Life and Family Legacies study.

Main Measures

During 2011–2012, spouses independently completed 14 consecutive daily surveys about their mood, marital interactions, and support exchanges. Caregiving agreement was defined as the daily ratio of spouse-reported care received to self-reported care given. Using generalized linear mixed effect modeling, we examined associations between spousal care agreement and outcomes of depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction.

Key Results

Sample data demonstrated broad variability in spousal agreement, with couples exhibiting substantial disagreement on nearly one-third of couple days (780/2598 days). On days where care was exchanged, higher caregiving agreement was associated with lower caregiver depression (p < 0.01) and anxiety (p < 0.01) in male caregivers, and higher marital satisfaction (p = 0.03) in female caregivers. When care recipients reported receiving more support than their spouse reported giving, these associations did not persist.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that spousal agreement about the amount of care given and received varies broadly and is an important consideration for primary care providers who counsel these patients day-to-day. Furthermore, agreement appears to predict mental health and relationship outcomes and should be further evaluated in this growing population of mid-to-late life adults emerging into caregiving.

KEY WORDS: depression, caregiving, primary care

BACKGROUND

An estimated one in six US adults (16.6%) provides informal caregiving for another adult,1 the equivalent of $306 billion in US economic value.2 More than 85% of caregivers care for someone age 50 or older, with an average care recipient age of 69.3 Furthermore, as caregiver age increases, the likelihood of caring for a spouse also rises (29%, age 65+ vs. 4%, age 15–64),4 yet neither qualitative nor quantitative data about spousal perceptions in assuming these roles is currently available.

Many individuals performing caregiving activities do not self-identify as caregivers.5 This discrepancy is important, because self-identifying as a caregiver is a key step toward seeking assistance.6 Indeed, because functional decline is usually progressive and compounding—especially in patients with specific neurocognitive disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s dementia)—caregivers often assume their responsibilities incrementally, blurring the transition from non-caregiving to caregiving.7 Moreover, the dynamic nature of functional impairment in early chronic illness can vary day-to-day,8 creating challenges for informal caregivers to recognize their role.9 Particularly among spousal caregivers, self-identification may be delayed due to this role ambiguity, with even high levels of daily assistance interpreted as an extension of spousal responsibilities rather than a caregiving role.1012 While caregiving has long been established as a significant risk factor for emotional and relationship distress,1315 the impact of caregiving without self-identification remains poorly understood.

Whether self-identified or not, caregivers and care recipients often have strikingly different perceptions of their own, and each other’s caregiving roles. Caregiver-recipient agreement has been evaluated in multiple contexts—including symptom intensity, end-of-life care preferences, and pain management1618; however, absent data from both caregivers and care recipients, the degree to which agreement about caregiving roles predicts caregiver health outcomes cannot be determined. Biehle and Nielson in 2012 suggested that at least among young, married couples, one spouse’s acknowledgment of receiving emotional support from the other is related to lower depression and anxiety in the supporting spouse (relative to couples where support is not acknowledged); yet, that study did not consider exchanges of practical support that are a characteristic of caregiving relationships.19 The current study focuses on spousal agreement about practical support given and received among older adult couples, and the potential impact of this agreement on health and marital outcomes.

Study aims include (1) to describe the range of daily agreement between older adult spouses’ perceptions of care given and care received; (2) explore associations between caregiving agreement and daily caregiver depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction; and (3) to evaluate differential effects for male and female caregivers.

METHODS

Regulatory approval

The Institutional Review Boards at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah approved this study.

Sample

Data were drawn from the Life and Family Legacies Daily Experiences Study (LFLDES), a branch of the Life and Family Legacies Study (LFLS), which followed 6729 high school graduates from Washington State, longitudinally, beginning in 1966.2021 Begun in 2011, the LFLDES component evaluated day-to-day interactions among a subset of couples from the LFLS sample, aiming to understand daily health behaviors, emotional health variability, and relationship outcomes for older adult couples. Married LFLDES participants were selected from the LFLS sample, using a random stratification procedure based on health (good vs. poor), rural vs. urban status, and veteran status (veteran vs. not). For a full description of sampling methods and selection protocol, see Yorgason et al. 2016.22

Data Collection

Couples completed daily surveys, independent of one another, for 14 days (14 surveys each, 28 surveys per couple). Each survey was identical and included measures of caregiving, emotional health, and marital satisfaction. The sample response rate was 34.7%, with 191 couples providing analyzable data (surveys from three couples and from nine individuals could not be used due to missing information) and most couples reporting on all 14 survey days (5196 total surveys; 2.8% of daily surveys missing). Participants were 62.4 years old, on average (range = 60–64 years), and 9% (n = 17) self-identified as caregivers of another adult. Socioeconomic, education, and marriage data are described in Table Table11.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics and Baseline Caregiving Values

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11606_2018_4408_Tab1_HTML.jpg

Those who participated in the 2010 wave of the Life and Family Legacies Study (LFLS), that is - no spousal information available for these indices

Or completion of some college

Primary respondents, as well as spousal information included

Variables with missing data were handled utilizing a maximum likelihood analysis native to SAS generalized mixed effect modeling. As such, days (rows) with missing data were excluded from the final analytic sample in each model, which explains the differences in final sample N values compared to the total sample of 191 couples from whom analyzable data were collected. SD= Standard deviation

Measures of Caregiving

Three caregiving variables were assessed for each survey day: (1) self-reported care given (i.e., practical support) to one’s spouse; (2) self-reported care received from one’s spouse; and (3) spousal agreement about the care exchanged on that day. Each study participant rated the intensity of practical support given and received during each day of the survey period using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = “Not at all”; 4 = “A lot”).23 As 91% of participants did not self-identify as caregivers, we did not designate a single “caregiver” or “care recipient” in each couple. Thus, a spouse could be a caregiver and/or care recipient on any given day based on their ratings of practical support given and received.

To quantify spousal agreement, we created a “Caregiving Agreement Ratio” (CAR) using paired spousal responses for each day. Mathematically, this ratio is care received by one spouse divided by care provided by the other spouse (Eq. 1).

Caregiver Agreement RatioCAR=care receivedbyonespousecare providedbythe other spouse
1

CAR values ranged from 0.0 to 4.0. A CAR of 0.0 represents a day where no care was given or received; 0.0 to 1.0 represents less care received than provided; 1.0 represents perfect agreement between care received and care provided; and greater than 1.0 represents more care received than provided. CAR was categorized into four quadrants representing states of agreement (Fig. (Fig.1).1). Quadrant A represents a day when a spouse reports receiving care while their partner did not report giving any care. The second and third predictors represent, respectively, situations where reported care given exceeded the care received (quadrant B), and where care received exceeded the care given (quadrant C). On days in quadrant D, no care was exchanged.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11606_2018_4408_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Distribution of spousal responses about care given and received over 14 days (percentages are relative to total couple days over 14-day study period (total of 5196 surveys). Bubble size is proportionate to count(percentage). Caregiver agreement ratio (CAR) = care received (by one spouse) divided by care given (by the other spouse). Quadrants represent CAR values, with encircled letters (A = care received, when no care is reported given by the other spouse; B = more care received than given; C = equal or more care given than received; and D = no care reported by either spouse). Perfect agreement is on diagonal, as represented by bolded outline of circles).

For example, if a wife rated her care for her husband as a 3, and her husband rated the care he received as a 1 on the same day, the CAR would be 1 divided by 3 (“received” divided by “provided”) or 0.3, which would fall in quadrant C. Alternatively, if a husband reported giving 1 out of 4 points of care and his wife rated her care received at 2 out of 4, the CAR would be 2 divided by 1 (or 2.0) and would fall in quadrant B.

CAR values on either side of 1.0 (see bolded circles on diagonal, Fig. Fig.1)1) represent fundamentally different caregiving situations. For CAR values < 1.0, increasing ratios approach 1.0 (perfect agreement). Alternatively, when CAR values are > 1, increasing ratios approach 4.0 (lack of agreement). Thus, perfect agreement itself (CAR = 1.0) was conceptualized to be the natural end point on the continuum of ratios < 1 as they approach agreement. Thus, we dichotomized daily CAR values as CAR ≤ 1.0 (quadrant C) and CAR > 1.0 (quadrant B) to characterize the impact of agreement or disagreement on each couple survey day.

Health and Marital Outcomes

Depression/Anxiety

Measured using nine items from the Profile of Mood States (POMS): five depression items (sad, discouraged, unworthy, lonely, gloomy) and four anxiety items (tense, shaky, uneasy, nervous).24 The anchors were modified from the original 7-point scale to a 5-point scale with responses ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”). Subscale items were summed to create a daily measure of depression and anxiety.

Marital satisfaction

Measured using a modified scale from McNulty and Karney.25 Respondents rated their satisfaction with their spouse/partner in the areas of division of household labor, emotional support, amount of time together, disagreements, conversations, affection, and dependability using a 0 (“very unsatisfied”) to 6 (“very satisfied”) scale. Items were summed to create a daily marital satisfaction score.

Statistical Analysis

Generalized linear mixed effect models estimated effects of daily care given, care received, and CAR on the primary outcomes. We employed sex-specific gamma regression (with log link functionality), and subject-level random effects to capture correlation among the repeated measures inherent to daily diaries. All models were adjusted for number of times married, income, and education among primary respondents (LFLS 2010 survey), as well as gender, as these factors are frequently important in evaluating caregiving experiences (see 1–2, 13). We also adjusted for daily diary date (before or after the first 4 days) when modeling depression and anxiety because of confounding with these two outcomes. Analyses used SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The effects of care given and received on primary outcomes are described using percent change scores. Scores quantify change in caregiver outcomes on each survey day, relative to a one-unit increase in predictor variables beyond an individual caregiver’s mean response over the 14-day period.

Regulatory approval

The Institutional Review Boards at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah approved this study.

Sample

Data were drawn from the Life and Family Legacies Daily Experiences Study (LFLDES), a branch of the Life and Family Legacies Study (LFLS), which followed 6729 high school graduates from Washington State, longitudinally, beginning in 1966.2021 Begun in 2011, the LFLDES component evaluated day-to-day interactions among a subset of couples from the LFLS sample, aiming to understand daily health behaviors, emotional health variability, and relationship outcomes for older adult couples. Married LFLDES participants were selected from the LFLS sample, using a random stratification procedure based on health (good vs. poor), rural vs. urban status, and veteran status (veteran vs. not). For a full description of sampling methods and selection protocol, see Yorgason et al. 2016.22

Data Collection

Couples completed daily surveys, independent of one another, for 14 days (14 surveys each, 28 surveys per couple). Each survey was identical and included measures of caregiving, emotional health, and marital satisfaction. The sample response rate was 34.7%, with 191 couples providing analyzable data (surveys from three couples and from nine individuals could not be used due to missing information) and most couples reporting on all 14 survey days (5196 total surveys; 2.8% of daily surveys missing). Participants were 62.4 years old, on average (range = 60–64 years), and 9% (n = 17) self-identified as caregivers of another adult. Socioeconomic, education, and marriage data are described in Table Table11.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics and Baseline Caregiving Values

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11606_2018_4408_Tab1_HTML.jpg

Those who participated in the 2010 wave of the Life and Family Legacies Study (LFLS), that is - no spousal information available for these indices

Or completion of some college

Primary respondents, as well as spousal information included

Variables with missing data were handled utilizing a maximum likelihood analysis native to SAS generalized mixed effect modeling. As such, days (rows) with missing data were excluded from the final analytic sample in each model, which explains the differences in final sample N values compared to the total sample of 191 couples from whom analyzable data were collected. SD= Standard deviation

Measures of Caregiving

Three caregiving variables were assessed for each survey day: (1) self-reported care given (i.e., practical support) to one’s spouse; (2) self-reported care received from one’s spouse; and (3) spousal agreement about the care exchanged on that day. Each study participant rated the intensity of practical support given and received during each day of the survey period using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = “Not at all”; 4 = “A lot”).23 As 91% of participants did not self-identify as caregivers, we did not designate a single “caregiver” or “care recipient” in each couple. Thus, a spouse could be a caregiver and/or care recipient on any given day based on their ratings of practical support given and received.

To quantify spousal agreement, we created a “Caregiving Agreement Ratio” (CAR) using paired spousal responses for each day. Mathematically, this ratio is care received by one spouse divided by care provided by the other spouse (Eq. 1).

Caregiver Agreement RatioCAR=care receivedbyonespousecare providedbythe other spouse
1

CAR values ranged from 0.0 to 4.0. A CAR of 0.0 represents a day where no care was given or received; 0.0 to 1.0 represents less care received than provided; 1.0 represents perfect agreement between care received and care provided; and greater than 1.0 represents more care received than provided. CAR was categorized into four quadrants representing states of agreement (Fig. (Fig.1).1). Quadrant A represents a day when a spouse reports receiving care while their partner did not report giving any care. The second and third predictors represent, respectively, situations where reported care given exceeded the care received (quadrant B), and where care received exceeded the care given (quadrant C). On days in quadrant D, no care was exchanged.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11606_2018_4408_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Distribution of spousal responses about care given and received over 14 days (percentages are relative to total couple days over 14-day study period (total of 5196 surveys). Bubble size is proportionate to count(percentage). Caregiver agreement ratio (CAR) = care received (by one spouse) divided by care given (by the other spouse). Quadrants represent CAR values, with encircled letters (A = care received, when no care is reported given by the other spouse; B = more care received than given; C = equal or more care given than received; and D = no care reported by either spouse). Perfect agreement is on diagonal, as represented by bolded outline of circles).

For example, if a wife rated her care for her husband as a 3, and her husband rated the care he received as a 1 on the same day, the CAR would be 1 divided by 3 (“received” divided by “provided”) or 0.3, which would fall in quadrant C. Alternatively, if a husband reported giving 1 out of 4 points of care and his wife rated her care received at 2 out of 4, the CAR would be 2 divided by 1 (or 2.0) and would fall in quadrant B.

CAR values on either side of 1.0 (see bolded circles on diagonal, Fig. Fig.1)1) represent fundamentally different caregiving situations. For CAR values < 1.0, increasing ratios approach 1.0 (perfect agreement). Alternatively, when CAR values are > 1, increasing ratios approach 4.0 (lack of agreement). Thus, perfect agreement itself (CAR = 1.0) was conceptualized to be the natural end point on the continuum of ratios < 1 as they approach agreement. Thus, we dichotomized daily CAR values as CAR ≤ 1.0 (quadrant C) and CAR > 1.0 (quadrant B) to characterize the impact of agreement or disagreement on each couple survey day.

Health and Marital Outcomes

Depression/Anxiety

Measured using nine items from the Profile of Mood States (POMS): five depression items (sad, discouraged, unworthy, lonely, gloomy) and four anxiety items (tense, shaky, uneasy, nervous).24 The anchors were modified from the original 7-point scale to a 5-point scale with responses ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”). Subscale items were summed to create a daily measure of depression and anxiety.

Marital satisfaction

Measured using a modified scale from McNulty and Karney.25 Respondents rated their satisfaction with their spouse/partner in the areas of division of household labor, emotional support, amount of time together, disagreements, conversations, affection, and dependability using a 0 (“very unsatisfied”) to 6 (“very satisfied”) scale. Items were summed to create a daily marital satisfaction score.

Statistical Analysis

Generalized linear mixed effect models estimated effects of daily care given, care received, and CAR on the primary outcomes. We employed sex-specific gamma regression (with log link functionality), and subject-level random effects to capture correlation among the repeated measures inherent to daily diaries. All models were adjusted for number of times married, income, and education among primary respondents (LFLS 2010 survey), as well as gender, as these factors are frequently important in evaluating caregiving experiences (see 1–2, 13). We also adjusted for daily diary date (before or after the first 4 days) when modeling depression and anxiety because of confounding with these two outcomes. Analyses used SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The effects of care given and received on primary outcomes are described using percent change scores. Scores quantify change in caregiver outcomes on each survey day, relative to a one-unit increase in predictor variables beyond an individual caregiver’s mean response over the 14-day period.

RESULTS

Variability in Couple Agreement

Sample characteristics from LFLS (2010) and caregiving measures at baseline (i.e., on survey day 1) are reported in Table Table1.1. In reference to study aim 1, couple responses from across the 14-day study period yielded a wide range of agreement ratios (CAR). On 1819 (70%) couple days, couple responses about care given and received were relatively concordant (i.e., within one point on 0–4 scale). On 811 of these days, couple responses were in perfect agreement (see diagonal in quadrant C, Fig. Fig.1).1). However, on nearly 1/3 of couple days (780 days), couple ratings about care were more discrepant (i.e., ≥ 2-point difference). These agreement data are represented proportionally (by count) relative to the total number of couple days in the study (2598 days) in Fig. Fig.11.

Although agreement proportions did not differ by sex (not shown), some trends emerged in reports of giving and receiving of care. At baseline, husbands reported receiving more care than they gave, and wives estimated that they gave the same amount of care as they received (Table (Table1).1). The mean baseline CAR for both husband and wife caregivers was 0.6 (quadrant C), suggesting that husbands and wives generally reported giving more care than their spouse reported receiving. Gender differences were also seen at the study outset. More wives had CAR > 1 (quadrant B) than their husbands (i.e., relative to men, women more often reported receiving more care than was reported given by their spouse at baseline). In contrast, quadrant A CAR values—discordant ratings where one spouse did not report giving any care while another spouse reported receiving care—did not differ meaningfully by sex.

Agreement on Health and Marital Outcomes

Regarding aims 2 and 3, analyses revealed that giving care to a spouse was related to higher marital satisfaction on that same day relative to persons’ mean satisfaction level over the 14-day study period (Table (Table2).2). However, there was no difference in depression or anxiety in the same comparison. Caregiver sex did not moderate this association, as giving care to a spouse was linked to higher marital satisfaction for both females and males, though anxiety and depression remained unrelated to giving care for either sex (Table (Table3).3). In contrast, persons receiving care experienced lower daily depression and higher marital satisfaction, though anxiety remained unrelated. When analyzed by care recipient sex, higher care received was linked to lower depression and higher marital satisfaction. Female recipients also experienced increased anxiety when reporting higher care received (Table (Table3).3). Thus, giving and receiving care were positively associated with marital satisfaction in both spouses; only receiving care was related to emotional outcomes, though negatively with anxiety in wives.

Table 2

Caregiving and Caregiving Agreement in Relation to Caregiver Health Outcomes

Percent change (p value)
DepressionbAnxietybMarital satisfactionb
Covariates
Care received (self-report)− 0.99% (0.002)0.31% (0.377)3.61% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.35% (0.391)0.20% (0.647)1.48% (< 0.001)
CAR > 1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 2.45% (0.012)− 1.25% (0.245)0.87% (0.248)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.17% (0.796)− 1.21% (0.089)0.66% (0.187)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.07% (0.894)0.39% (0.517)1.64% (< 0.001)

Percent change on a given day relative to an individual’s mean value over the 14-day study period

Caregiver outcomes relative to the caregiving spouses’ self-reported measures of mood and marriage each day

Table 3

Caregiving and Caregiving Agreement in Relation to Caregiver Health Outcomes—Stratified by Sex

Percent change (p value)
DepressionbAnxietybMarital satisfactionb
Male spouses
Care received (self-report)− 1.00% (0.030)− 0.27% (0.590)4.36% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.40% (0.518)− 0.13% (0.841)1.19% (0.008)
CAR>1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.02% (0.988)− 1.92% (0.100)0.78% (0.320)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 2.96% (0.048)− 3.34% (0.042)− 0.41% (0.709)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)0.46% (0.589)0.37% (0.689)1.51% (0.016)
Female spouses
Care received (self-report)− 0.99% (0.025)1.12% (0.020)2.57% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.39% (0.470)0.56% (0.338)1.86% (< 0.001)
CAR>1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.32% (0.674)− 0.64% (0.450)0.47% (0.461)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 1.90% (0.1241)0.97% (0.478)2.32% (0.027)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.59% (0.400)0.52% (0.494)1.81% (0.002)

Percent change on a given day relative to an individual’s mean value over the 14-day study period

Caregiver outcomes relative to the caregiving spouses’ self-reported measures of mood and marriage each day

Spousal agreement about daily caregiving exchanges (i.e., CAR) was predictive of each of the primary outcomes in specific circumstances. On days when CAR was ≤ 1 (quadrant C, Fig. Fig.1),1), increasing spousal agreement was associated with lower caregiver depression overall compared with that caregiver’s mean depression score across 14 days (Table (Table2).2). However, CAR was significantly predictive of depression and anxiety only in male caregivers (Table (Table3).3). CAR predicted higher marital satisfaction for female caregivers only.

When considering CAR > 1 (quadrant B), increasing spousal agreement about care (i.e., CAR decreasing toward 1.0) was not predictive of caregiver depression, anxiety, or marital satisfaction overall or by sex (Tables (Tables22 and and3).3). However, when one spouse did not report giving any care and at the same time the other spouse reported receiving care (quadrant A), higher care received was associated with higher marital satisfaction in the “caregiver” (Table (Table2);2); sex-stratified results for marital satisfaction demonstrating similar results (Table (Table33).

In summary, on days when care received is less than care provided, better agreement is related to improved caregiver emotional health and marital outcomes. Nevertheless, on days when the care received exceeds care given, improved agreement does not appear to be predictive of outcomes in caregivers.

Variability in Couple Agreement

Sample characteristics from LFLS (2010) and caregiving measures at baseline (i.e., on survey day 1) are reported in Table Table1.1. In reference to study aim 1, couple responses from across the 14-day study period yielded a wide range of agreement ratios (CAR). On 1819 (70%) couple days, couple responses about care given and received were relatively concordant (i.e., within one point on 0–4 scale). On 811 of these days, couple responses were in perfect agreement (see diagonal in quadrant C, Fig. Fig.1).1). However, on nearly 1/3 of couple days (780 days), couple ratings about care were more discrepant (i.e., ≥ 2-point difference). These agreement data are represented proportionally (by count) relative to the total number of couple days in the study (2598 days) in Fig. Fig.11.

Although agreement proportions did not differ by sex (not shown), some trends emerged in reports of giving and receiving of care. At baseline, husbands reported receiving more care than they gave, and wives estimated that they gave the same amount of care as they received (Table (Table1).1). The mean baseline CAR for both husband and wife caregivers was 0.6 (quadrant C), suggesting that husbands and wives generally reported giving more care than their spouse reported receiving. Gender differences were also seen at the study outset. More wives had CAR > 1 (quadrant B) than their husbands (i.e., relative to men, women more often reported receiving more care than was reported given by their spouse at baseline). In contrast, quadrant A CAR values—discordant ratings where one spouse did not report giving any care while another spouse reported receiving care—did not differ meaningfully by sex.

Agreement on Health and Marital Outcomes

Regarding aims 2 and 3, analyses revealed that giving care to a spouse was related to higher marital satisfaction on that same day relative to persons’ mean satisfaction level over the 14-day study period (Table (Table2).2). However, there was no difference in depression or anxiety in the same comparison. Caregiver sex did not moderate this association, as giving care to a spouse was linked to higher marital satisfaction for both females and males, though anxiety and depression remained unrelated to giving care for either sex (Table (Table3).3). In contrast, persons receiving care experienced lower daily depression and higher marital satisfaction, though anxiety remained unrelated. When analyzed by care recipient sex, higher care received was linked to lower depression and higher marital satisfaction. Female recipients also experienced increased anxiety when reporting higher care received (Table (Table3).3). Thus, giving and receiving care were positively associated with marital satisfaction in both spouses; only receiving care was related to emotional outcomes, though negatively with anxiety in wives.

Table 2

Caregiving and Caregiving Agreement in Relation to Caregiver Health Outcomes

Percent change (p value)
DepressionbAnxietybMarital satisfactionb
Covariates
Care received (self-report)− 0.99% (0.002)0.31% (0.377)3.61% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.35% (0.391)0.20% (0.647)1.48% (< 0.001)
CAR > 1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 2.45% (0.012)− 1.25% (0.245)0.87% (0.248)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.17% (0.796)− 1.21% (0.089)0.66% (0.187)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.07% (0.894)0.39% (0.517)1.64% (< 0.001)

Percent change on a given day relative to an individual’s mean value over the 14-day study period

Caregiver outcomes relative to the caregiving spouses’ self-reported measures of mood and marriage each day

Table 3

Caregiving and Caregiving Agreement in Relation to Caregiver Health Outcomes—Stratified by Sex

Percent change (p value)
DepressionbAnxietybMarital satisfactionb
Male spouses
Care received (self-report)− 1.00% (0.030)− 0.27% (0.590)4.36% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.40% (0.518)− 0.13% (0.841)1.19% (0.008)
CAR>1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.02% (0.988)− 1.92% (0.100)0.78% (0.320)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 2.96% (0.048)− 3.34% (0.042)− 0.41% (0.709)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)0.46% (0.589)0.37% (0.689)1.51% (0.016)
Female spouses
Care received (self-report)− 0.99% (0.025)1.12% (0.020)2.57% (< 0.001)
Care given (self-report)0.39% (0.470)0.56% (0.338)1.86% (< 0.001)
CAR>1 (see Quad B, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.32% (0.674)− 0.64% (0.450)0.47% (0.461)
CAR≤1 (see Quad C, Fig. Fig.11)− 1.90% (0.1241)0.97% (0.478)2.32% (0.027)
Care received (spouse-report, see Quad A, Fig. Fig.11)− 0.59% (0.400)0.52% (0.494)1.81% (0.002)

Percent change on a given day relative to an individual’s mean value over the 14-day study period

Caregiver outcomes relative to the caregiving spouses’ self-reported measures of mood and marriage each day

Spousal agreement about daily caregiving exchanges (i.e., CAR) was predictive of each of the primary outcomes in specific circumstances. On days when CAR was ≤ 1 (quadrant C, Fig. Fig.1),1), increasing spousal agreement was associated with lower caregiver depression overall compared with that caregiver’s mean depression score across 14 days (Table (Table2).2). However, CAR was significantly predictive of depression and anxiety only in male caregivers (Table (Table3).3). CAR predicted higher marital satisfaction for female caregivers only.

When considering CAR > 1 (quadrant B), increasing spousal agreement about care (i.e., CAR decreasing toward 1.0) was not predictive of caregiver depression, anxiety, or marital satisfaction overall or by sex (Tables (Tables22 and and3).3). However, when one spouse did not report giving any care and at the same time the other spouse reported receiving care (quadrant A), higher care received was associated with higher marital satisfaction in the “caregiver” (Table (Table2);2); sex-stratified results for marital satisfaction demonstrating similar results (Table (Table33).

In summary, on days when care received is less than care provided, better agreement is related to improved caregiver emotional health and marital outcomes. Nevertheless, on days when the care received exceeds care given, improved agreement does not appear to be predictive of outcomes in caregivers.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that perceptions of daily care given and received—including level of agreement between spouses—range broadly. Indeed, on one-third of study days, couples showed substantive lack of agreement. Furthermore, level of agreement predicted caregiver depression, anxiety, and marital satisfaction. Sex differences manifested as an important modifier. As the population of caregiving couples grows, these findings are relevant for patients and their medical providers.

Range of Agreement About Care Given and Received

These data highlight a novel consideration for clinicians when evaluating stressors in their patients, particularly those experiencing a transition to a caregiving relationship. Only 7.6% of couple days resulted in spouses endorsing a total absence of care exchanged, so some caregiving appears normative among mid-to-late life couples. These findings highlight the importance of obtaining the perspectives of both spouses regarding functional assistance. Moreover, future studies should consider assessing factors that may predict such discrepancies among partners.

Agreement and Caregiver Outcomes

Congruent with studies of younger couples in which discrepant spousal opinions about shared life situations are associated with distress,2627 these results suggest that in some circumstances, disagreement in spouses who are older (in this study, spouses were typically 61 years of age) is associated with increased depression/anxiety and worsened marital satisfaction. Recent surveys demonstrate that 70% of caregivers experience depressive symptoms with up to half meeting diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder,18 and meta-analysis shows that the largest difference between caregivers and non-caregivers is not in physical health (g = .18) but rather in depression (g = .58).13 Hence, increasing understanding about potential mediators of depression (and related mental health and relationship outcomes) is imperative. The current study highlights one such mediator—discordances in couple agreement.

Previous studies demonstrate that the effects of giving and receiving care are complicated by both caregiver and care recipient perceptions of the exchange. Recent work in older married couples specifically highlights that higher perceived spousal support is related to less negative affect; yet, it also suggests that when support occurs, perceptions can be associated with more vulnerability to negative affect between spouses.28 Similarly, studies of care recipients have consistently found that feelings of support availability during life stressors, more than the actual receipt of support itself, mitigate negative health consequences (e.g., depression).2930 In fact, observational studies have demonstrated that receiving a higher amount of support seems to potentiate recipient distress,26273132 which one study characterized as feeling “overly dependent on” and “indebted to” their spouse as a result of receiving care.33 Consistent with these findings, female spouses in the current study who reported that they received greater care, also endorsed increased anxiety on that same day. Because caregiving is frequently viewed as a traditional role for female spouses,34 they be more likely to experience anxiety when a need for care causes role reversal. This role conflict might relate to the need for care33 and/or concern for their ability to provide care to others.

In contrast to these data, though not unseen in previous investigations,3436 we found that for both males and females, spouses reporting that they received a higher level of care had lower daily depression and higher marital satisfaction on that day. These seemingly conflicting findings may be explained by Bolger et al., who suggested that the timing of care provision relative to the course of a patient stressor may produce markedly different, and frequently positive, mental health outcomes in recipients.27 Furthermore, in the present analysis, our focus was on practical support, rather than emotional support—where these associations were originally noted. It is also possible that caregiving exchanges in this study avoided the emotional costs sometimes associated with receiving care (e.g., dependency or ego detriments), because these interactions occurred prior to severe functional impairment and/or clear spousal caregiving roles.3738

Limitations and Strengths

This study is limited by homogeneity of participant ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education. The couples involved in the current sample were exclusively Caucasian, reflecting the LFLS cohort, but restricting generalization of these results to more diverse populations. Moreover, participants comprised primarily an upper-middle class cohort. Future research including more diverse couples is needed. Finally, these results cannot be extrapolated to other caregiving situations (children-to-parent, parent-to-children, spouse to non-co-residing spouse)—where differences in pre-morbid kin relationships among caregiving dyads modify outcome measures significantly.39

There are several notable strengths to this study. First, our sample isolates a rapidly growing demographic of married couples in whom caregiving roles and expectations are yet mostly undefined and support transactions between partners may be understood discrepantly. Insight provided by the current study into how caregiving and recipient spouses interpret these introductory caregiving exchanges could prove important for early recognition and prevention in couples at risk for the negative health and relationship impacts born out of disagreement about care. A further strength is the daily diary methodology, which included a large number of older adult couples and generated over 2500 days of paired survey data on caregiving agreement.

Clinical implications

In practice, the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit already includes simple cognitive, mental health, and other screening evaluations.40 Future development of a screening tool for caregiving perceptions, including level of agreement among couples, might identify couples at risk of adverse outcomes—particularly in cases with no self-identified caregiver. Early identification could lead to interventions previously shown to improve caregiver health outcomes.41 Regardless, the current study highlights how simple information about the different experiences of caregiving in couples might lead providers to initiate conversations and assist couples in transitioning to caregiving roles.

Range of Agreement About Care Given and Received

These data highlight a novel consideration for clinicians when evaluating stressors in their patients, particularly those experiencing a transition to a caregiving relationship. Only 7.6% of couple days resulted in spouses endorsing a total absence of care exchanged, so some caregiving appears normative among mid-to-late life couples. These findings highlight the importance of obtaining the perspectives of both spouses regarding functional assistance. Moreover, future studies should consider assessing factors that may predict such discrepancies among partners.

Agreement and Caregiver Outcomes

Congruent with studies of younger couples in which discrepant spousal opinions about shared life situations are associated with distress,2627 these results suggest that in some circumstances, disagreement in spouses who are older (in this study, spouses were typically 61 years of age) is associated with increased depression/anxiety and worsened marital satisfaction. Recent surveys demonstrate that 70% of caregivers experience depressive symptoms with up to half meeting diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder,18 and meta-analysis shows that the largest difference between caregivers and non-caregivers is not in physical health (g = .18) but rather in depression (g = .58).13 Hence, increasing understanding about potential mediators of depression (and related mental health and relationship outcomes) is imperative. The current study highlights one such mediator—discordances in couple agreement.

Previous studies demonstrate that the effects of giving and receiving care are complicated by both caregiver and care recipient perceptions of the exchange. Recent work in older married couples specifically highlights that higher perceived spousal support is related to less negative affect; yet, it also suggests that when support occurs, perceptions can be associated with more vulnerability to negative affect between spouses.28 Similarly, studies of care recipients have consistently found that feelings of support availability during life stressors, more than the actual receipt of support itself, mitigate negative health consequences (e.g., depression).2930 In fact, observational studies have demonstrated that receiving a higher amount of support seems to potentiate recipient distress,26273132 which one study characterized as feeling “overly dependent on” and “indebted to” their spouse as a result of receiving care.33 Consistent with these findings, female spouses in the current study who reported that they received greater care, also endorsed increased anxiety on that same day. Because caregiving is frequently viewed as a traditional role for female spouses,34 they be more likely to experience anxiety when a need for care causes role reversal. This role conflict might relate to the need for care33 and/or concern for their ability to provide care to others.

In contrast to these data, though not unseen in previous investigations,3436 we found that for both males and females, spouses reporting that they received a higher level of care had lower daily depression and higher marital satisfaction on that day. These seemingly conflicting findings may be explained by Bolger et al., who suggested that the timing of care provision relative to the course of a patient stressor may produce markedly different, and frequently positive, mental health outcomes in recipients.27 Furthermore, in the present analysis, our focus was on practical support, rather than emotional support—where these associations were originally noted. It is also possible that caregiving exchanges in this study avoided the emotional costs sometimes associated with receiving care (e.g., dependency or ego detriments), because these interactions occurred prior to severe functional impairment and/or clear spousal caregiving roles.3738

Limitations and Strengths

This study is limited by homogeneity of participant ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education. The couples involved in the current sample were exclusively Caucasian, reflecting the LFLS cohort, but restricting generalization of these results to more diverse populations. Moreover, participants comprised primarily an upper-middle class cohort. Future research including more diverse couples is needed. Finally, these results cannot be extrapolated to other caregiving situations (children-to-parent, parent-to-children, spouse to non-co-residing spouse)—where differences in pre-morbid kin relationships among caregiving dyads modify outcome measures significantly.39

There are several notable strengths to this study. First, our sample isolates a rapidly growing demographic of married couples in whom caregiving roles and expectations are yet mostly undefined and support transactions between partners may be understood discrepantly. Insight provided by the current study into how caregiving and recipient spouses interpret these introductory caregiving exchanges could prove important for early recognition and prevention in couples at risk for the negative health and relationship impacts born out of disagreement about care. A further strength is the daily diary methodology, which included a large number of older adult couples and generated over 2500 days of paired survey data on caregiving agreement.

Clinical implications

In practice, the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit already includes simple cognitive, mental health, and other screening evaluations.40 Future development of a screening tool for caregiving perceptions, including level of agreement among couples, might identify couples at risk of adverse outcomes—particularly in cases with no self-identified caregiver. Early identification could lead to interventions previously shown to improve caregiver health outcomes.41 Regardless, the current study highlights how simple information about the different experiences of caregiving in couples might lead providers to initiate conversations and assist couples in transitioning to caregiving roles.

CONCLUSION

Given the widespread societal and individual burden of informal caregiving worldwide, understanding unique relational and emotional health impacts of agreeing about care is critical. This study suggests that spousal agreement about the amount of care given and received is widely variable and predicts lower depression/anxiety and higher marital satisfaction among spousal caregivers. Uniquely, these findings relate to a growing population of emerging older adult caregivers in whom little specific research has been conducted. Daily diaries are well-suited to capturing the often rapidly shifting relationship dynamics associated with developing spousal roles. Future research should focus on validating these associations and/or proposing clinical interventions that can reliably reproduce these positive health outcomes, especially for couples emerging into caregiving and receiving roles.

Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, 3rd Floor Faculty Office Tower, 395 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT USA
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT USA
Salt Lake VA Office of Rural Health, Salt Lake City, UT USA
Salt Lake VA GRECC, Salt Lake City, UT USA
Wesley B. Godfrey, Email: ude.cmuso@yerfdog.yelsew.
Corresponding author.
Received 2017 Jul 1; Revised 2017 Dec 27; Accepted 2018 Feb 26.

Contributors

Study concept and design: WBG, RWR, JBY, BLH. Project oversight and management: WBG. Data collection and management: WBG, JBY. Statistical analysis: YZ, WC. Initial manuscript draft: WBG. Final preparation of manuscript: WBG, JBY, YZ, BLH, WC, RWR. The authors wish to thank Dr. Mark Supiano, MD for his helpful feedback on the initial manuscript drafts, as well as the couples who so willingly participated in this study.

Contributors

Funding

This work was supported by a grant award to Godfrey as part of the Medical Student Training in Aging Research (MSTAR) program, administered by the American Federation for Aging Research (AFAR). This work was also supported by the Veterans Administration (VA) Office of Rural Health (Western Region) and the Gerontology Program of Brigham Young University. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the VA or the US Government.

The funding sources had no role in the design or execution of the current study, including no part in data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation, nor any involvement in reviewing and approving the final manuscript for submission.

Funding

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The Institutional ReviewBoards at BrighamYoung University and the University of Utah approved this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Notes

Footnotes

Prior Presentations

Findings were presented as a poster at the annual scientific meeting of the American Geriatrics Society held in National Harbor, MD in May 2015.

Footnotes

References

  • 1. Caregiving in the U.S. 2015. The National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP Public Policy Institute (online). Available at: . Accessed January 17, 2018.[PubMed]
  • 2. Caregiving in Rural America. 2006. Easter Seals Disability Services and The National Alliance for Caregiving (online). Available at: . Accessed January 17, 2018.[PubMed]
  • 3. Caregiving in the U.S. 2009. The National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP Public Policy Institute (online). Available at: . Accessed January 17, 2018.[PubMed]
  • 4. Unpaid Eldercare in the United States—2015–2016. Data from the American Time Use Survey. 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (online). Available at: . Accessed January 17, 2018.[PubMed]
  • 5. Ugalde A, Krishnasamy M, Schofield PRole recognition and changes to self-identity in family caregivers of people with advanced cancer: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:1175–1181. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1194-9.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. O’Connor DLSelf-identifying as a caregiver: exploring the positioning process. J Aging Studies. 2007;21:165–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2006.06.002.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 7. Menaghan EG, Lieberman MAChanges in depression following divorce: a panel study. J Marriage Family. 1986;48:319–328. doi: 10.2307/352399.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 8. Yorgason JB, Roper SO, Sandberg JG, et al Stress spillover of health symptoms from healthy spouses to patient spouses in older married couples managing both diabetes and osteoarthritis. Families, Systems, &amp; Health. 2012;30:330–343. doi: 10.1037/a0030670.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 9. Tschanz JT, Corcoran CD, Schwartz S, et al Progression of cognitive, functional and neuropsychiatric symptom domains in a population cohort with Alzheimer’s dementia: the Cache County Dementia Progression Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;19:532–542. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181faec23.] [[Google Scholar]
  • 10. Rook KS. Social support vs. companionship: effects on life stress, loneliness, and evaluations by others. J Personality Social Psych. 1987;52:1132–1147. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1132.] [[PubMed]
  • 11. Emotion BE. In: Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A et al., eds. Close Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983, pp 110–168.
  • 12. Coyne JC, Bolger NDoing without social support as an explanatory concept. J Soc Clinic Psychol. 1990;9:148–158. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.148.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 13. Pinquart M, Sörensen SDifferences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2003;18:250–267. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 14. Zarit SH. Assessment of family caregivers: a research perspective. In: Kelly KA, Feinberg LF, editors. Caregiver Assessment: Voices and Views from the Field. Report from A National Consensus Development Conference, Vol 2. Report from a National Consensus Development Conference (Vol 2); 2005 Sept 7–9; San Francisco, California. Family Caregiving Alliance, pp 12–37, 2006.
  • 15. Savundranayagam MY, Montgomery RJV, Kosloski KA dimensional analysis of caregiver burden among spouses and adult children. The Gerontologist. 2011;51:321–331. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq102.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. McMillan SC, Moody LEHospice patient and caregiver congruence in reporting patients’ symptom intensity. Cancer Nurs. 2003;26:113–118. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200304000-00004.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 17. Shega JW, Hougham GW, Stocking CB, et al Pain in community-dwelling persons with dementia: frequency, intensity, and congruence between patient and caregiver report. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;28:585–592. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.04.012.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 18. Gardner DS, Kramer BJEnd-of-life concerns and care preferences: congruence among terminally ill elders and their family caregivers. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying. 2010;60:273–297. doi: 10.2190/OM.60.3.e.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 19. Biehle SN, Mickelson KDProvision and receipt of emotional spousal support: the impact of visibility on well-being. Couple Fam Psychol: Research Pract. 2012;1:244–251. doi: 10.1037/a0028480.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 20. Call VRA, Otto LB, Spenner KI Tracking respondents: a multi-method approach. Massachusetts: Lexington Books; 1982. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 21. Otto LB, Call VRA, Spenner KI Design for the study of entry into careers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1981. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 22. Yorgason JB, Godfrey WB, Call VRA et al. Daily sleep predicting marital interactions as mediated through mood. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 000–000, 2016. [[PubMed]
  • 23. Rafaeli E, Cranford JA, Green AS, et al The good and bad of relationships: how social hindrance and social support affect relationship feelings in daily life. Personality Soc Psychol Bull. 2008;34:1703–1718. doi: 10.1177/0146167208323742.] [[Google Scholar]
  • 24. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF, et al Manual for the profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service: San Diego, CA; 1971. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 25. McNulty JK, Karney BRAttributions in marriage: integrating specific and global evaluations of a relationship. Person Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27:943–955. doi: 10.1177/0146167201278003.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 26. Bolger N, Zuckerman A, Kessler RCInvisible support and adjustment to stress. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:953–961. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 27. Bolger N, Amarel DEffects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92:458–475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 28. Michalowski VI, Hoppmann CA, Gerstorf DAssociations between perceived support in older adult marriages and dyadic covariations in momentary affect and aches. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016;71:425–430. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu151.] [[Google Scholar]
  • 29. Stroebe W, Stroebe M. The social psychology of social support. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW, editors. Socialpsychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press; 1996. pp. 597–621. [PubMed]
  • 30. Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barnett CLThe relational context of social support: relationship satisfaction moderates the relations between enacted support and distress. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29:1133–1146. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254545.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lindorff MIs it better to perceive than receive? Social support. Stress and Strain for Managers. Psychol Hlth Med. 2000;5:271–286. doi: 10.1080/713690199.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 32. Seidman G, Shrout PE, Bolger NWhy is enacted social support associated with increased distress? Using simulation to test two possible sources of spuriousness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006;32:52–65. doi: 10.1177/0146167205279582.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. Beach SR, Schulz R, Yee JL, et al Negative and positive health effects of caring for a disabled spouse: longitudinal findings from the caregiver health effects study. Psychol Aging. 2000;15:259–271. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.259.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 34. Sharma N, Chakabarit S, Grover SGender differences in caregiving among family—caregivers of people with mental illnesses. World J Psychiatry. 2016;6(1):7–17. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v6.i1.7.] [[Google Scholar]
  • 35. Abraido-Lanza AFSocial support and psychological adjustment among latinas with arthritis: a test of a theoretical model. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:162–171. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2703_4.] [[Google Scholar]
  • 36. Collins NL, Dunkel-Schetter C, Lobel M, et al Social support in pregnancy: psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum depression. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:1243–1258. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1243.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 37. Feldman SI, Downey G, Schaffer-Neitz RPain, negative mood, and perceived support in chronic pain patients: a daily diary study of people with reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. J Conslt Clin Psychol. 1999;67:776–785. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.776.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 38. Newsom JT, Schulz RCaregiving from the recipient’s perspective: negative reactions to being helped. Hlth Psychol. 1998;17:172–181. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.17.2.172.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 39. Iwata N, Horiguchi KDifferences in caregivers’ psychological distress and associated factors by care recipients’ gender and kinship. Aging Ment Hlth. 2015;20:1277–1285. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1074161.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 40. Hain DJThe CMS annual wellness visit: bridging the gap. Nurse Pract. 2014;39(7):18–26. doi: 10.1097/01.NPR.0000450741.00077.79.] [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 41. Smith GC, Egbert N, Dellman-Jenkins M, et al Reducing depression in stroke survivors and their informal caregivers: a randomized clinical trial of a web-based intervention. Rehab Psychol. 2012;57:196–206. doi: 10.1037/a0029587.] [[Google Scholar]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.