Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec 31;19(1):3.
doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-1112-1.

Social inequalities in the burden of care: a dyadic analysis in the caregiving partners of persons with a physical disability

Affiliations

Social inequalities in the burden of care: a dyadic analysis in the caregiving partners of persons with a physical disability

Hannah Tough et al. Int J Equity Health. .

Abstract

Background: Socioeconomic position (SEP) is an important contextual factor in the Stress Process Model of caregiving. However, the basic assumption that low SEP is associated with greater caregiver burden has so far lacked empirical support. The objective of this study was to investigate social inequalities in the caregiver burden among caregiving partners of persons with a physical disability, i.e., spinal cord injury (SCI), applying a dyadic approach. More specifically, we investigated 1) the association of the caregivers' SEP with caregiver burden ('actor effect'); 2) the association of the care-receivers' SEP with caregiver burden ('partner effect'), and 3) potential mediators of the association between SEP and caregiver burden.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey data from 118 couples of persons with SCI and their partners living in Switzerland was used. We firstly employed logistic regression to investigate the actor and partner effects of SEP on objective (hours of caregiving) and subjective caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview). We additionally used structural equation modelling to explore whether unfulfilled support needs, psychosocial resources and the care-receivers health status mediated the association between SEP and caregiver burden. SEP was operationalized by household income, education, subjective social position, financial strain and home ownership.

Results: We observed a consistent trend towards higher objective and subjective burden in lower SEP groups. Caregivers with higher subjective social positon and home ownership indicated lower subjective burden, and caregivers with higher education and absence of financial strain reported lower objective burden. Further evidence suggested a partner effect of SEP on caregiver burden, whereby objective caregiver burden was reduced in couples where the care-receiver had a higher educational level. The negative association between SEP and subjective burden was partially mediated by the unfulfilled support needs and deprived psychological resources of the caregiver, and the poor health status of the care-receiver. Similar mediation effects were not supported for objective burden.

Conclusions: Our study, in the context of SCI, provides support for the contextual role of SEP in the Stress Process Model of caregiving. To reduce subjective caregiver burden, policy programs may target the strengthening of psychosocial resources, or the improvement of access to support services for caregivers with low SEP.

Keywords: Caregiver burden; Dyadic analysis; Inequalities; Mediation; Socio-economic position; Spinal cord injury; Stress process model of caregiving.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the study aims
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Unmediated model. b Mediated by unfulfilled support needs of caregiver (parametrization of latent construct ‘SEP’ as in 2a). c Mediated by psychosocial resources of caregiver (parametrization of latent construct ‘SEP’ as in 2a). d Mediated by health status of care-receiver (parametrization of latent construct ‘SEP’ as in 2a)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pickard L, Wittenberg R, Comas-Herrera A, Davies B, Darton R. Relying on informal care in the new century? Informal care for elderly people in England to 2031. Ageing Soc. 2000;20:745–772. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X01007978. - DOI
    1. UNECE. UNECE Policy Brief on Ageing No. 22: The challenging roles of informal carers. UNECE Working Group on Ageing 2019.
    1. OECD. Help wanted? Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care. Paris: OECD; 2011.
    1. Federal Office for Public Health: Support for relatives providing care and nursing https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/strategie-und-politik/politische-au.... Accessed 1 Nov 2019.
    1. Montgomery RJ, Gonyea JG, Hooyman NR. Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Fam Relat. 1985;34:19–26. doi: 10.2307/583753. - DOI

Publication types