Do Informal Caregivers Expect to Die Earlier? A Longitudinal Study with a Population-Based Sample on Subjective Life Expectancy of Informal Caregivers

Do sexual minorities believe that they die earlier? Results from a large, representative survey

BACKGROUND

While various consequences of belonging to sexual minorities have been examined - it remains completely unclear whether sexual minorities believe that they die earlier. Thus, our aim was to investigate the association between sexual orientation and expected longevity.

METHODS

Data from the German Ageing Survey, a nationally representative sample, were used (year 2014, n = 6,424 individuals; mean age: 63.6 years). It included individuals residing in private households aged 40 years and over in Germany. Sexual orientation (heterosexual; sexual minorities including homosexual, bisexual, or other) served as key independent variable. As outcome, we used the expected life expectancy. In multiple linear regressions it was adjusted for gender, age, education, marital status, labour force participation, BMI, smoking status, alcohol intake, sports activities, physical functioning, self-rated health and the number of chronic conditions.

RESULTS

Adjusting for sociodemographic, lifestyle-related and health-related factors, our study showed that sexual minorities reported a lower expected longevity (β=-0.69, p = .02) compared to heterosexuals. This association remained nearly the same in robustness checks.

CONCLUSION

After adjusting for various other factors, our findings showed a lower life expectancy among sexual minorities compared to heterosexuals. Efforts are required to make sexual minorities believe in a high life expectancy (e.g., increased optimism or reduced perceived discrimination) - which in turn can help to increase their actual longevity and successful ageing. Future research is required to explore underlying mechanisms (such as expected stigma in later life).

Bridge or Barrier? The Impact of Network Capital on the Receipt of Long-Term Care Services in Germany

OBJECTIVES

In Germany, roughly 8.3 million people are in need of care, but only one-third of them receive state care benefits. The study investigates whether the individual network of a care-seeking person, as well as its resources, interact with health status on the likelihood of accessing formal care services.

METHODS

German data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) from 2015 were used in several Firth logistic regressions with interaction terms.

RESULTS

Health limitations are a significant predictor for the probability of receiving formal care benefits. As moderating factors, caregivers from the immediate family as well as caregivers with lower levels of education tend to contribute to an increase in this probability.

DISCUSSION

Findings are based on a limited data set and indicate the importance of further research in this area to examine the mechanisms of access to formal care more precisely.

Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review

Background: Several empirical studies have shown an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. Nevertheless, a systematic review is lacking synthesizing studies which have investigated these aforementioned associations. Therefore, our purpose was to give an overview of the existing evidence from observational studies. Materials and Methods: Three electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched in June 2021. Observational studies investigating the association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation were included. In contrast, studies examining grandchild care or private care for chronically ill children were excluded. Data extractions covered study design, assessment of informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation, the characteristics of the sample, the analytical approach and key findings. Study quality was assessed based on the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Each step (study selection, data extraction and evaluation of study quality) was conducted by two reviewers. Results: In sum, twelve studies were included in our review (seven cross-sectional studies and five longitudinal studies)—all included studies were either from North America or Europe. The studies mainly showed an association between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. The overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusion: Our systematic review mainly identified associations between providing informal care and higher loneliness levels. This is of great importance in assisting informal caregivers in avoiding loneliness, since it is associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality. Moreover, high loneliness levels of informal caregivers may have adverse consequences for informal care recipients.

Intensity of care and perceived burden among informal caregivers to persons with chronic medical conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Informal caregivers provide ongoing assistance to a loved one with a health condition. No studies have compared caregiving intensity and perception of burden across chronic medical conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched from inception through 11 September 2020 to identify studies that included the Level of Care Index or the Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI) among caregivers for people with chronic diseases. Pooled mean ZBI scores and 95% confidence intervals by medical condition were calculated using a random effects model and heterogeneity with I².

RESULTS

Ninety-seven included articles reported on 98 unique samples across 21 chronic diseases. No study used the Level of Care Index. Among 12 disease groups with more than one study, heterogeneity was too high (I² range: 0-99.6%, ≥76.5% in 11 groups) to confidently estimate burden. The percent of studies rated high risk of bias ranged from 0% to 98%, but all external validity items were rated as high-risk in >50% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the need for studies on caregiver burden to improve sampling techniques; better report sampling procedures and caregiver and care recipient characteristics; and develop a standard set of outcomes, including a measure of caregiving intensity. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42017080962IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe amount of burden reported by caregivers to loved ones is associated with reduced physical and mental health.We found considerable heterogeneity in perceived burden reported by informal caregivers across different studies within disease groups, which is likely related to methodological issues, including sampling techniques.Health care providers who use research on caregiver burden should assess how representative study samples may be and exercise caution in drawing conclusions.

Informal caregiving for adults, loneliness and social isolation: a study protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Some empirical studies have identified an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. However, there is a lack of a review systematically synthesising empirical studies that have examined these associations. Hence, the aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of evidence from observational studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Three electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL) will be searched (presumably in May 2021), and reference lists of included studies will be searched manually. Cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies examining the association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation will be included. Studies focusing on grandchildren care or private care for chronically ill children will be excluded. Data extraction will include information related to study design, definition and measurement of informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation, sample characteristics, statistical analysis and main results. The quality of the studies will be evaluated using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Two reviewers will perform the selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of study quality. Figures and tables will be used to summarise and report results. A narrative summary of the findings will be provided. If data permit, a meta-analysis will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No primary data will be collected. Therefore, approval by an ethics committee is not required. We plan to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020193099.