Attention Baby Boomers! Get the Latest Cdc Recommendations for You

Infant Boomers as Caregivers: Results From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 44 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2015–2017

Christina Due east. Miyawaki, PhD, MSW, MA¹; Erin D. Bouldin, PhD, MPH^{2 ,3}; Christopher A. Taylor, PhD²; Lisa C. McGuire, PhD² (View writer affiliations)

Suggested citation for this article: Miyawaki CE, Bouldin ED, Taylor CA, McGuire LC. Babe Boomers as Caregivers: Results From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 44 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2015–2017. Prev Chronic Dis 2020;17:200010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200010external icon.

PEER REVIEWED

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Word
• Acknowledgments
• Writer Information
• References
• Tables

What is already known on this topic?

In the United States, baby boomers provide much informal care for people with health problems and disabilities. Men in these caregiving roles more often report poor general health than women caregivers from the same generation.

What is added by this written report?

Caregivers who are infant boomers more unremarkably report frequent mental distress and have more chronic health conditions than noncaregivers, which might put them at gamble of condign care recipients.

What are the implications for public wellness exercise?

For caregivers to maintain their health and proceed providing care, efforts must be fabricated to reduce the negative health furnishings of caregiving and provide back up to caregivers for managing stress and chronic health atmospheric condition.

Abstruse

Introduction

Baby boomers, people born from 1946 through 1964, represent a substantial portion of the United states of america population. Generally, baby boomers have more than chronic illness and inability than those in the previous generation. Oft, they also provide informal care to others. The objective of our study was to estimate the prevalence of informal caregiving among babe boomers and compare the wellness of babe boomer caregivers and noncaregivers.

Methods

Using data from the Behavioral Take a chance Factor Surveillance System (2015–2017) for 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, we classified 109,268 infant boomers as caregivers or noncaregivers and compared their full general wellness (poor or fair vs good, very good, or excellent), chronic health conditions, and frequent mental distress (FMD). FMD was defined every bit fourteen days or more of poor mental health in the past month. Nosotros used log-binomial regression to calculate prevalence ratios, adjusted for historic period and sex (aPRs), and to separately estimate aPRs for fair or poor health and FMD or at to the lowest degree one chronic health status.

Results

One in iv infant boomers (24.2%) were caregivers. In adjusted models, male caregivers had a college prevalence of fair to poor health than noncaregivers (apr = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], ane.06–1.29; P = .001). More than caregivers than noncaregivers had at to the lowest degree 1 chronic health condition (april = 1.10, 95% CI, one.07–1.xiii; P < .001) and more oftentimes had FMD (april = ane.39; 95% CI, 1.26–1.53; P < .001).

Conclusion

Our study showed these caregivers had more chronic health conditions and more often had FMD than noncaregivers. The health of baby boomer caregivers is a public health priority, every bit these caregivers might need support to maintain their own physical and mental health.

Top

Introduction

In the Us, much of the care for people with health bug, long-term illness, or disability is provided by family unit members or friends in the customs (1). In 2015, 43.5 million adults were providing this informal care (2). Babe boomers, born from 1946 through 1964 and currently in eye to older historic period, take more chronic disease, more than inability, and lower self-rated wellness than those of the previous generation (3), and they might as well provide substantial treat others. This intendance might be for a partner or friend of a like historic period with a chronic condition, long-term illness, or disability (4), an older parent who might be failing cognitively, or a family fellow member with a health condition, injury, or disability (5).

Although providing informal intendance can bring many benefits, information technology is also a source of a chronic stress (6). Caregivers might experience this stress because of the physical demands of caregiving, the challenges of balancing work and other responsibilities with the caregiving role, the trouble with managing problematic behaviors of the people they care for, or the emotional difficulty of watching a loved one's health decline (6,7). Stress coping models or process models take shown that the strain associated with caregiving tin effect in psychological distress and interference with the immune arrangement (viii) and cardiovascular functions (6,7). Caregivers might also engage in health behaviors that contribute to negative health outcomes because of limited fourth dimension to be physically active, nourish medical appointments, or manage their own chronic conditions. Together, these physiological and behavioral changes increment the likelihood of developing new concrete and mental wellness conditions (6,7).

By providing care to others, infant boomer caregivers who might accept their own concrete or mental challenges could exist in a position that negatively affects their own health (vi,seven,ix). Despite this supposition, few studies exist on caregiving among baby boomers and the cocky-reported wellness of this population. Therefore, information technology is imperative that we learn about current wellness conditions and caregiving situations of baby boomers then that we can preclude declines in their health to the extent possible, peculiarly given the anticipated shortage of available caregivers for this generation (10). The objectives of our study were to gauge the prevalence of informal caregiving among baby boomers, to describe the blazon of care they provide, and to evaluate whether their overall health and mental health differ from their noncaregiving peers.

Top

Methods

Data source

We used 3 years of data (2015–2017) from the Behavioral Hazard Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). BRFSS is a state-based landline and cellular telephone survey of noninstitutionalized, community-dwelling adults anile 18 years or older, conducted by country health departments with back up from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (www.cdc.gov/brfss). The Caregiver Module is an optional set of nine questions developed for the BRFSS that states may choose to administrate. For 2015–2017, 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico administered these caregiving-related questions. If a state included the module in more ane yr, we included only the most contempo information in the assay. Because BRFSS does not provide birthdates, we considered babe boomers (born from 1946 through 1964) past their historic period in years at the time of survey (ie; 50–69 in 2015, 51–70 in 2016, 52–71 in 2017). Our study was reviewed by Appalachian State University and classified every bit exempt.

Caregiver status

Nosotros classified respondents every bit caregivers if they answered aye to the following Caregiver Module screening question, "People may provide regular intendance or assistance to a friend or family fellow member who has a wellness problem, long-term illness, or disability. During the past month, did yous provide any such care or help to a friend or family unit member?" We classified respondents as noncaregivers who answered no to the caregiver screening question.

Wellness status

Respondents rated their general health as fantabulous, very skillful, good, fair or poor, and we classified them equally fair or poor versus excellent, very adept, or proficient. We evaluated the presence of the following chronic health conditions: arthritis, current asthma, cardiovascular disease (angina, stroke, or myocardial infarction), diabetes (excluding gestational or prediabetes), cancer other than pare cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nosotros created a dichotomous variable to indicate whether respondents had at least one of these chronic wellness atmospheric condition and required responses to at least four of the half-dozen items for classification equally having a chronic health condition or not. Frequent mental distress (FMD) was determined past answering this question, "At present, thinking virtually your mental wellness, which includes stress, depression, and problems with emotions, for how many days during the past thirty days was your mental health not good?" Consequent with previous inquiry and recommendations from CDC (11), we classified respondents equally having FMD if they reported 14 days or more than of poor mental wellness in the past xxx days.

Covariates

All data collected through the BRFSS are cocky-reported. We included data on respondents' sex activity and historic period in years. Nosotros created variables with the following categories for descriptive purposes: age grouping (50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–71, using the imputed historic period variable [0.3% of respondents were missing cocky-reported age]), race/ethnicity (not-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, not-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic whatsoever race, not-Hispanic other race or multiracial), highest level of educational attainment (less than high school, high school or equivalent, some college, college graduate or higher), and employment status (employed or cocky-employed, out of work, homemaker, student, retired, unable to piece of work).

Among caregivers, we categorized the care recipient'south human relationship to the caregiver as parent, spouse or partner, other family fellow member, or nonfamily member. We created dichotomous variables to indicate caregiving elapsing (<2 years, ≥ii years), caregiving hours (<xx hours per week or ≥20 hours), and caregiving tasks (personal intendance and household tasks). Household tasks included activities such as cleaning, managing finances, and preparing meals and personal intendance involving more hands-on care such every bit dressing, bathing, and feeding. If the unweighted denominator was less than 50 or the relative standard error (calculated as weighted standard fault divided past weighted pct, multiplied by 100) was greater than 30, we did not study the estimate because they may be unstable.

Statistical analysis

Nosotros included BRFSS respondents who were classified equally babe boomers and had no missing values for our master variables: caregiving condition, general wellness, FMD, and at least 1 chronic health condition. We besides limited our sample to respondents who had a valid (dichotomous choice) response for sex, because we included this equally a covariate in our regression models. Among 111,672 baby boomers who had a response recorded for the caregiving screening question, we excluded two,404 (2.two% unweighted) because of missing information; therefore, our final sample size was 109,268.

We calculated the weighted proportion of caregivers overall. We likewise calculated weighted proportions to depict the demographic and wellness status characteristics of baby boomer caregivers and noncaregivers and used χ² tests to compare proportions beyond groups. Finally, we examined caregiving characteristics, such as total caregiving elapsing, weekly caregiving hours, and caregiving tasks. We used divide log-binomial regression models to judge the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for having fair or poor wellness, FMD or at to the lowest degree one chronic wellness status, adjusting for age in years and sexual practice. We considered terms for both age and historic period² in our models. The primary model was not adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics because the focus of our study was on the overall association betwixt caregiving status and health outcomes. However, nosotros conducted a sensitivity analysis adjusting for education category and race/ethnicity to represent socioeconomic position. Because of the lack of variety in race/ethnicity among respondents, nosotros could only adjust for not-Hispanic white race/ethnicity versus all other groups. We tested each model for outcome modification by sex, including an interaction term between caregiver status and sex. We established P < .05 to betoken significance, including effect modification.

Data were weighted using the appropriate weight variable in the BRFSS public data file, based on the survey version(s) of the Caregiver Module that appeared in each state (12). Primary sampling units and stratum weights were besides included in our weighting statements to appropriately calculate standard errors. All analyses were conducted using survey (SVY) commands (StataCorp, LLC) with subpopulation statements as advisable (eg, restricting to respondents who were infant boomers with no missing covariates) in Stata version xiii.1.

Top

Results

Of the 109,268 baby boomers surveyed, 24.ii% were caregivers, and of all caregivers, 38.v% were baby boomers. Caregivers were slightly younger (mean [SD] = 59.3 [half-dozen.vi] y) than noncaregivers (mean [SD] = 59.eight [six.6] y) (P < .001) and were more often women, non-Hispanic white, and college-educated (Table 1). Employment status was like among caregivers and noncaregivers; most half of the infant boomers were employed, and about 25% were retired.

Caregivers and noncaregivers were similar in full general wellness status. Most baby boomers rated their wellness every bit excellent, very good or good, regardless of whether they were caregivers (75.8%) or noncaregivers (77.2%) (P = .09). Yet, baby boomer caregivers more than often reported FMD (fifteen.ii%) than noncaregivers (10.3%) (P < .001). In add-on, caregivers (63.four%) more often had at to the lowest degree 1 chronic health condition, compared with noncaregivers (57.3%) (P < .001). Caregivers more than often had been diagnosed with arthritis (44.4% vs 37.0%; P < .001), current asthma (10.9% vs nine.i%; P = .002), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (eleven.2% vs 9.2%, P < .001) than noncaregivers. We institute no difference in the prevalence of nonskin cancer, cardiovascular affliction, and diabetes between infant boomer caregivers and noncaregivers.

Baby boomers most frequently cared for a parent (41.ix%) (Tabular array 2), although caring for another family unit member (25.3%), spouse or partner (17.three%), or a friend or neighbour (fourteen.vi%) also were common. More than one-half of caregivers (53.8%) had provided care for at least 2 years, and 28.6% were caregiving twenty hours or more per calendar week. Most caregivers (79.4%) helped with the care recipient's household tasks, and 50.5% assisted with their personal intendance. We plant that women more frequently than men provided 20 hours or more of care per calendar week and assisted with personal care.

We observed effect modification between caregiving and sex (P = .01) when we evaluated the relationship between caregiving and general wellness condition (Table 3). Results were nearly identical (no changed indicate estimates or P values for caregiver status) when we included historic period or age² in the models. Male caregivers had a higher prevalence of fair or poor health, compared with male noncaregivers of the same historic period (april = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.29; P = .001), although female caregivers and noncaregivers had the same prevalence of reporting fair or poor wellness (aPR = 0.98, P = .74). In models evaluating FMD and chronic wellness conditions, we observed no effect modification by sex. Caregivers were more likely to have FMD than their noncaregiving peers (aPR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26–1.53; P < .001), and caregivers were also more likely to have at least one chronic health status, compared with noncaregivers (aPR = one.10; 95% CI, 1.07–1.13; P < .001). Results were similar when nosotros added educational attainment and race/ethnicity to the models. For models estimating fair or poor health among men and FMD, prevalence estimates indicated that caregivers were more likely to have negative health outcomes after accounting for differences in socioeconomic position.

Top

Discussion

Using BRFSS data from 2015–2017, we examined the prevalence of baby boomer caregivers and compared their general health, mental health, and chronic health conditions with baby boomer noncaregivers. We found that caregiving is a common feel among baby boomers. I in 4 babe boomers is a caregiver, and although the generation represented near 23% of the US population (74 1000000) in 2016 (13), 38% of all caregivers are babe boomers. Typical infant boomer caregivers in our study were non-Hispanic white, college-educated, employed women, who were in good to first-class health and caring for their parents.

The full general health of male person infant boomer caregivers was poorer than male person infant boomers who were non caregivers, although we found no significant divergence in health status among female baby boomers, based on caregiving status. Given that female caregivers generally experience more stress than male person caregivers (half dozen,11), this result was somewhat surprising, because greater burden or stress is associated with negative wellness outcomes. I possible explanation for this observation is that male babe boomers might be more likely than their female caregiving counterparts to neglect their ain health when providing care. Women tend to participate in more preventive care than men (14,15). However, we could not find whatever existing literature to signal our hypothesis, and therefore information technology would need to be tested. Another explanation, given the cross-sectional nature of these data, is that in the baby boomer generation, men in poor health are more likely to assume a caregiving role while women are equally likely to become caregivers, whether their health is good or poor.

Across both sexes, caregivers more oftentimes had FMD. These patterns are well documented for caregivers of all ages, including other characteristics (ie, employed and unemployed) (xvi–18). Engaging caregivers in evidence-based preparation and support programs or increasing access to respite care or formal supports (eg, paid in-home aid and caregiver duties) could reduce burden, which also could convalesce the FMD associated with caregiving (7).

We also found that caregivers were more likely than their noncaregiving counterparts to report chronic health atmospheric condition. Some studies propose that caregiving can increase the take chances for some chronic atmospheric condition, including heart disease, although some studies find no issue (7,19,20). Evidence likewise indicates that spouses and partners have similar perceived health and disability condition, which might result from shared environments (21–23). Regardless, whether caregiving contributes to the evolution of chronic health conditions or reflects common risk factors, caregiving might affect chronic disease direction. If caregivers are non able to attend to their own health (eg, attending medical appointments, taking medications every bit prescribed, beingness physically active, adhering to a healthy diet) because of the financial or time costs of caregiving, and then their own health may exist negatively affected. Caregivers might become unable to provide care and might even need a caregiver for themselves if negative conditions persist (vii,nine). Further research is warranted.

Our study showed that more half of baby boomer caregivers provided intendance for longer than 2 years, and more than a i-quarter provided care for xx hours or more per week. Previous studies accept shown that the longer a person acts as a caregiver, including caregivers who are employed, the worse the caregiver's wellness and mental health atmospheric condition go (4). Caregiving for aging parents for upwardly to 4 years has resulted in significantly worse health amidst caregivers who are older babe boomers (xvi).

Previous studies showed that typical caregivers in all age groups (66%) are not-Hispanic white women (2). Our study confirms that finding, equally most in our sample were non-Hispanic white (74%), employed (52%), and female (62%). Even so, previous studies indicated that the prevalence of caregiving is college among black, Hispanic, and Asian families. These groups tend to care for crumbling family members because their cultures are family unit-oriented (24,25). In our study, the percentages of non-Hispanic black baby boomer caregivers (11.ii%) and noncaregivers (10.5%) were similar (P = .25), but the percentages of caregivers were smaller than the percentages of noncaregivers among Hispanic (8.half-dozen% vs 12.6%; P < .001) and Asian or Pacific Islander (1.1% vs 4.ane%; P < .001) infant boomers. The results of our report back up the idea that caregiving responsibilities may exist shared amid family members, as many African American, Hispanic, and Asian families do (26,27). Although some Hispanic and Asian baby boomers are providing help to aging persons, they might not consider themselves equally caregivers considering caring for their parents is perceived as normal and expected in their cultures. Growing upwardly, some of these caregivers observed their mothers and fathers caring for their parents; therefore, caregiving is not new to them (27).

More studies on baby boomers in general, and infant boomers as caregivers in particular, are warranted. As the number of older adults increases, more caregivers will exist needed to meet their physical, mental, and cerebral needs. We saw in our study that infant boomers are ane large cohort that provides informal care for people with long-term illnesses, disabilities, or chronic health weather, and this intendance frequently involves help with personal intendance and household tasks. Without the aid that baby boomers provide, many of those who demand assistance might accept unmet needs or require formal or institutional care. However, the baby boomer generation of caregivers is also aging and might need their own caregivers. In 2018, there were 7 potential family unit caregivers per 1 adult. By 2030, when all baby boomers will exist aged 65 years or older, there will be only iv potential family caregivers per 1 developed, increasing the burden on the caregiver workforce (x). The number of caregivers might not be sufficient to provide care for baby boomers when they need care. Strengthening that workforce is a logical and plausible recommendation.

The population aged 65 or older is projected to increment from 52 million in 2018 to 71 million in 2030, when the last cohort of infant boomers volition turn 65. Therefore, it is imperative to have physical plans to support this large cohort of aging baby boomers. CDC'south Alzheimer's Illness and Healthy Aging Program and the Alzheimer's Association developed Supporting Caregivers: A Healthy Brain Initiative Effect Map, which is framed on the basis of essential public health services and identifies 17 public health deportment to support caregivers (28). The Event Map is an example of a strategy for supporting baby boomer caregivers. Although it was designed for people providing care for someone with Alzheimer's disease or dementia, the Upshot Map might be used as a template to support infant boomer caregivers.

Limitations of our written report include its cross-exclusive nature and the lack of detail in some characteristics of caregivers. Because we only knew the caregivers' health status at the time of the survey, it is possible that the physical burden of caregiving did non negatively affect their physical health status. Instead, chronic stress from caregiving might accept negatively contributed to their poor health (29). Given previous research on the negative health effects of caregiving, caregiving most likely did contribute to the negative health affects observed (20,29). Longitudinal studies would help to clarify the relationships observed. Country-level variation in services, supports, and admission to quality care for older adults or caregivers might consequence in lower prevalence ratios for FMD, for case, but we did not investigate this variation. Another limitation is that BRFSS data are self-reported, and responses are field of study to biases, such as social desirability bias. Finally, because nosotros did not take information about chronic illness cocky-direction, we could non assess whether the level of chronic disease self-direction for caregivers differed from that of noncaregivers. Despite these limitations, our report contributes to the literature because we used a large, representative sample covering 44 states, included racial/ethnic minority populations who are frequently underrepresented in inquiry, and used validated measures.

Our study enhances knowledge on the prevalence of infant boomer caregivers and their concrete and mental health status. As people historic period, more babe boomers might serve every bit caregivers. To enable their operation in this role as long as possible, public wellness efforts are needed to support the caregiver role and enhance their health. This support might include improving treat older adults and providing supports outside of family systems. For example, a community implementation of the evidence-based Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer'southward Caregiver Health (REACH) Ii plan (thirty) involved a half dozen-month multicomponent, psychosocial intervention (6 face-to-face sessions, 6 telephone sessions, phone support groups). Caregivers reported meaning decreases in "depression, brunt, and bother" by care recipients' retention bug at half dozen and 12 months, showing the successful implementation of the program through a partnership between developers and community partners. Almost half of baby boomer caregivers were employed in our study, suggesting that caregiving policies for older adults in the workplace could be modified to ease the brunt of working while caregiving. To support caregivers broadly, other deportment suggested in the Healthy Brain Initiative Outcome Map should be considered.

Acme

Acknowledgments

All authors of this article declare that there are no financial conflicts of involvement to disembalm. No borrowed materials, copyrighted surveys, instruments, or tools were used for this article. The findings and conclusions of this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC.

Elevation

Author Information

Respective Author: Christina E. Miyawaki, PhD, MSW, MA, Graduate College of Social Piece of work, Academy of Houston, 3511 Cullen Blvd, Room 110HA, Houston, TX 77204. Telephone: 713-743-0320. Email: cemiyawaki@uh.edu.

Writer Affiliations: ¹Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. ²Alzheimer's Affliction and Healthy Aging Program, Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. ^threeDepartment of Health and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone, N Carolina.

Meridian

References

1. Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC, Wolff JL. The asymmetric touch on of dementia on family unit and unpaid caregiving to older adults. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34(ten):1642–9. CrossRefexternal icon
2. National Alliance for Caregiving and American Association of Retired Persons. Caregiving in the United states of america: 2015 report. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/caregiving-in-the-united-states-2015-study-revised.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2019.
3. King DE, Matheson Due east, Chirina S, Shankar A, Broman-Fulks J. The status of baby boomers' health in the Us: the healthiest generation? JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(5):385–half-dozen. CrossRefexternal icon
4. Hilbrecht M, Lero DS, Schryer E, Mock SE, Smale B. Understanding the association betwixt time spent caregiving and well-beingness amidst employed adults: testing a model of piece of work–life fit and sense of community. Customs Work Fam 2017;20(two):162–80. CrossRefexternal icon
5. Moon H, Dilworth-Anderson P. Babe boomer caregiver and dementia caregiving: findings from the National Study of Caregiving. Age Ageing 2015;44(2):300–6. CrossRefexternal icon
6. Schulz R, Sherwood PR. Physical and mental health furnishings of family unit caregiving. Am J Nurs 2008;108(nine Suppl):23–7. CrossRefexternal icon
7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Families caring for an aging America. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2016.
8. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC, Atkinson C, Malarkey WB, Glaser R. Chronic stress and age-related increases in the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100(15):9090–five. CrossRefexternal icon
9. Talley RC, Crews JE. Framing the public wellness of caregiving. Am J Public Health 2007;97(ii):224–8. CrossRefexternal icon
10. Redfoot D, Feinberg F, Houser A. The aging of the baby nail and the growing care gap: a look at future declines in the availability of family caregivers. August 2013. https://world wide web.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/inquiry/public_policy_institute/ltc/2013/baby-boom-and-the-growing-care-gap-insight-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2019.
11. Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention. Measuring healthy days: population assessment of health-related quality of life. Atlanta (GA): US Department of Wellness and Homo Services; 2000. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/pdfs/mhd.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2019.
12. Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention. The BRFSS data user guide. https://world wide web.cdc.gov/brfss/data_documentation/pdf/UserguideJune2013.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2019
13. Fry R. Millennials projected to overtake infant boomers as America'due south largest generation. FactTank. Pew Research Center. 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/. Accessed September 25, 2019.
14. Harvard Medical Schoolhouse. Mars vs Venus: the gender gap in health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mars-vs-venus-the-gender-gap-in-health. Accessed January 4, 2020.
15. Palmer J. Study: virtually adults practice non receive preventive intendance. Patient condom and quality healthcare, 2018. https://world wide web.psqh.com/analysis/study-most-adults-dont-receive-preventive-care/ Accessed Jan 4, 2020.
16. Kohl NM, Mossakowski KN, Sanidad Two, Bird OT, Nitz LH. Does the health of adult child caregivers vary by employment status in the U.s.a.? J Aging Health 2019;31(ix):1631–51. CrossRefexternal icon
17. Roth DL, Fredman 50, Haley We. Informal caregiving and its impact on health: a reappraisal from population-based studies. Gerontologist 2015;55(ii):309–19. CrossRefexternal icon
18. Roth DL, Perkins M, Wadley VG, Temple EM, Haley We. Family caregiving and emotional strain: associations with quality of life in a large national sample of middle-aged and older adults. Qual Life Res 2009;xviii(6):679–88. CrossRefexternal icon
19. Bertrand RM, Saczynski JS, Mezzacappa C, Hulse Yard, Ensrud K, Fredman L. Caregiving and cognitive function in older women: prove for the healthy caregiver hypothesis. J Crumbling Wellness 2012;24(1):48–66. CrossRefexternal icon
20. , Pinquart M, , Sorensen Southward. Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol 2003;58(ii):P112–P128. CrossRefexternal icon
21. Hoppmann CA, Gerstorf D, Hibbert A. Spousal associations between functional limitation and depressive symptom trajectories: longitudinal findings from the report of asset and health dynamics among the oldest quondam (AHEAD). Health Psychol 2011;xxx(ii):153–62. CrossRefexternal icon
22. Rist PM, Liu SY, Glymour MM. Families and inability onset: are spousal resources less important for individuals at high chance of dementia? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2016;24(7):585–94. CrossRefexternal icon
23. Wang JY, Hsieh MH, Lin PC, Liu CS, Chen JD. Parallel contagion phenomenon of concordant mental disorders amongst married couples: a nationwide cohort report. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71(vii):640–7. CrossRefexternal icon
24. Miyawaki CE. A review of ethnicity, civilization, and acculturation among Asian caregivers of older adults (2000–2012). SAGE Open 2015;5(ane):1–xviii. CrossRefexternal icon
25. Pharr JR, Francis CD, Terry C, Clark MC. Civilization, caregiving, and health: exploring the influence of culture on family caregiver experiences. Public Health 2014;i–viii. CrossRefexternal icon
26. Miyawaki CE. Caregiving practice patterns of Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white American family unit caregivers of older adults beyond generations. J Cross Cult Gerontol 2016;31(1):35–55. CrossRefexternal icon
27. Miyawaki CE. Association of filial responsibility, ethnicity, and acculturation amongst Japanese American family caregivers of older adults. J Appl Gerontol 2017;36(3):296–319. CrossRefexternal icon
28. Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention Alzheimer'southward Association. Supporting caregivers: a healthy brain initiative issue map. https://www.cdc.gov/aging/healthybrain/issue-maps/supporting-caregivers.html. Accessed October eight, 2019.
29. Vitaliano PP, Zhang J, Scanlan JM. Is caregiving chancy to one's wellness? A meta-assay. Psychol Balderdash 2003;129(half dozen):946–72. CrossRefexternal icon
30. Czaja SJ, Lee CC, Perdomo D, Loewenstein D, Bravo M, Moxley JH, et al. Community REACH: an implementation of an bear witness-based caregiver program. Gerontologist 2018;58(two):e130–vii. CrossRefexternal icon

Tiptop

Tables

Tabular array one. Characteristics of Baby Boomer Caregivers and Noncaregivers, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2015–2017^a

Characteristic	Caregivers, Weighted % (Unweighted n = 26,617)	Noncaregivers, Weighted % (Unweighted n = 82,651)	P Valueb
Sex
Female	61.7	49.0	<.001
Age group, y
50–54	26.7	23.5	<.001
55–59	25.ix	25.5
60–64	26.0	26.1
65–71	21.iii	24.ix
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic blackness	11.2	10.5	.25
Non-Hispanic white	74.0	68.8	<.001
Hispanic	viii.half-dozen	12.6	<.001
Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander	1.1	4.i	<.001
Other race or multiracial	3.5	2.5	.001
Missing	1.5	1.6	NA
Education
Less than high school	9.0	13.5	<.001
High school degree or equivalent	27.9	27.9
Some college	35.8	29.vii
College graduate	27.ane	28.7
Missing	0.2	0.two	NA
Employment status
Employed or self-employed	51.7	52.three	.fifteen
Unemployed	5.4	4.viii	.xi
Homemaker	6.2	5.ii	.07
Student	NA	0.2	NA
Retired	24.9	25.7	0.35
Unable to piece of work	eleven.7	11.iv	0.51
Missing	0.9	0.v	NA
General health status
Excellent, very adept, or good	75.8	77.2	.09
Fair or poor	24.ii	22.8
Chronic health conditions diagnosed
Arthritis	44.4	37.0	<.001
Asthma (current merely)	ten.9	9.1	.002
Cancer (except skin)	10.1	ix.5	.36
Cardiovascular diseasec	13.0	12.three	.36
Diabetes (except gestational)	17.2	18.two	.17
COPD	xi.ii	9.2	<.001
≥ane Chronic wellness condition diagnosed	63.four	57.iii	<.001
Frequent mental distress (≥14 days of poor mental health in the past 30 days)	15.2	10.3	<.001

Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; NA, non applicable or non reported considering relative standard error >thirty.0, indicating unstable guess.
^a 2015 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, S Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming; 2016 states/territories: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Southward Dakota, Tennessee, Texas; 2017 states: Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah.
^b P value based on χ^two exam of weighted proportions.
^c Cardiovascular disease includes angina, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Table 2. Characteristics of Babe Boomer Caregivers Overall and past Sexual practice, Behavioral Risk Gene Surveillance System, 2015–2017^a

Variable	All Baby Boomer Caregivers, Weighted % (Unweighted n = 26,617)	Female Baby Boomer Caregivers, Weighted % (Unweighted n = 17,327)	Male Baby Boomer Caregivers, Weighted % (Unweighted n = nine,290)	P Valueb
Parent or parent-in-law	41.ix	41.nine	42.0	.xc
Spouse or partner	17.three	16.viii	18.0	.36
Other relative	25.3	27.4	22.0	<.001
Nonrelative	fourteen.6	13.1	17.0	<.001
Missing	0.9	0.ix	1.0	NA
Caregiving ≥2 years	53.8	53.4	54.four	.58
Missing	1.viii	ane.8	one.seven	NA
Caregiving ≥20 h per calendar week	28.6	31.6	23.9	<.001
Missing	v.ix	six.iii	5.3	NA
Personal care	50.v	53.9	45.1	<.001
Missing	1.1	one.0	1.one	NA
Household tasks	79.4	79.four	79.1	.79
Missing	0.9	0.9	1.vi	NA

^a 2015 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming; 2016 states/territories: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico, S Dakota, Tennessee, Texas; 2017 states: Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah.
^b P value based on the χ² test of weighted proportions comparing female and male caregivers.

Table 3. Prevalence Ratios for Associations Between Caregivers and Full general Wellness, Frequent Mental Distress, and Chronic Health Weather condition Using Regression Models, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Organisation, 2015–2017^a

Characteristic	Fair or Poor General Health april (95%CI) [P valuec]	Frequent Mental Distress aPR (95%CI) [P valuec]	≥1 Chronic Health Conditionb aPR (95%CI) [P valuec]
Women
Caregiver status
Is a caregiver	0.98 (0.90–one.08) [.74]	—	—
Is non a caregiver	one [Reference]	—	—
Age, per year	1.00 (0.99–1.01) [.85]	—	—
Men
Caregiver status
Is a caregiver	one.17 (1.06–i.29) [.001]	—	—
Is not a caregiver	1 [Reference]	—	—
Historic period, per year	1.01 (i.01–1.02) [<.001]	—	—
Men and Women
Caregiver status
Is a caregiver	—	1.39 (1.26–1.53) [<.001]	1.x (1.07–1.13) [<.001]
Is non a caregiver	—	one [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Age, per year	—	0.97 (0.97–0.98) [<.001]	one.03 (1.02–1.03) [<.001]
Sex
Female person	—	1.41 (1.28–one.55) [<.001]	ane.07 (1.04–one.09) [<.001]
Male person	—	i [Reference]	one [Reference]

Abbreviations: CI, conviction interval; aPR, adjusted prevalence ratio; — model not run.
^a N = 109,268 from 2015 country data of Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Southward Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming; 2016 states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas; 2017 states: Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New United mexican states, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah.
^b Chronic wellness conditions include arthritis, electric current asthma, nonskin cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
^c P value based on survey weighted log-binomial regression models.

Summit

bresslerablion.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2020/20_0010.htm

Share this post