Caregivers' Cannabis Use: Does Burden Lead to Blunts?

Research on risky health behaviors among caregivers is limited. In this paper, we examine the association between informal caregiving and marijuana use and whether this association varies by age. Using data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2016-2019), a multivariable logistic regression model compared marijuana use in “caregivers” and “expectant caregivers.” We stratified the analyses by age and also assessed the association between caregiving intensity and marijuana use. Among younger individuals (18-49 years), informal caregiving was associated with higher odds of marijuana use. In this group, higher prevalence of marijuana use was positively associated with care intensity. There was no detectable association between caregiving and marijuana use among older individuals (50 years or older). Health behaviors among caregivers differ by age. Combined exposure to informal caregiving and marijuana in young adulthood may lead to adverse long-term health consequences. Immediate effects of marijuana use may negatively influence care recipient outcomes.

Gender Differences in the Link Between Informal Caregiving and Subjective Well-Being

Despite existing evidence on the negative association between informal caregiving and caregiver’s well-being, three important knowledge gaps remain. First, the link warrants further scrutiny due to the possibility of individual heterogeneity. Second, less is known about how informal caregiving is related to caregiver’s well-being. Third, there is little consensus in the literature regarding whether caregiver’s gender matters. This study fills these gaps in the literature. Using seven waves of a large-scale, nationally representative longitudinal study of older adults in Korea between 2006 and 2018, this study employed generalized estimating equations models with a lagged dependent variable as well as fixed effects models. Findings from both models revealed that informal caregiving is negatively associated with subjective well-being, and this association is largely driven by female caregivers. To explore potential mechanisms undergirding this association, we examined the mediating roles of a number of health behaviors. We found that engaging in informal caregiving is associated with a reduction in regular exercise. Results from mediation analyses, however, suggested that regular exercise explains only a moderate amount of the observed association (12% for health-related life satisfaction and 8% for self-rated health). While informal caregiving is obviously a rewarding role, it poses a serious threat to caregiver’s well-being. Findings of this study on gender differences in the well-being consequences of informal caregiving lend support to taking a gender-conscious approach in programs aiming to improve the well-being of informal caregivers.

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.

Effectiveness of interventions to address the negative health outcomes of informal caregiving to older adults: protocol for an umbrella review

IntroductionInformal (unpaid) caregivers play an essential role in caring for older people, whose care needs are often not fully met by formal services. While providing informal care may be a positive experience, it can also exert a considerable strain on caregivers’ physical and mental health. How to best support the needs of informal caregivers remains largely debated. This umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) aims to evaluate (1) whether effective interventions can mitigate the negative health outcomes of informal caregiving, (2) whether certain types of interventions are more effective than others, (3) whether effectiveness of interventions depends on caregiver/receiver, context or implementation characteristics and (4) how these interventions are perceived in terms of acceptability, feasibility and added value.Methods and analysisWe will include systematic reviews of primary studies focusing on the effectiveness of interventions (public or private, unifaceted or multifaceted, delivered by health or social care professionals or volunteers) aimed at reducing the impact of caregiving on caregivers’ physical or mental health. This will also include quantitative and qualitative syntheses of implementation studies. The literature search will include the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. A key informant-guided search of grey literature will be performed. Quality appraisal will be conducted with the AMSTAR-2 checklist for quantitative reviews and with an ad hoc checklist for qualitative syntheses. Narrative and tabular summaries of extracted data will be produced, and framework synthesis will be employed for weaving together evidence from quantitative studies in effectiveness reviews with findings on implementation from qualitative studies.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will use data from secondary sources and will not involve interactions with study participants; it is thus exempt from ethical approval. Results will be presented at international conferences and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021252841.

Are informal family caregivers stigmatized differently based on their gender or employment status?: a German study on public stigma towards informal long-term caregivers of older individuals

Background Stigma and informal caregiving are determinants for health and wellbeing, but few studies have examined stigma towards informal caregiving. Public stigma may be expressed differently towards caregivers depending on their gender and employment status due to societal norms. Therefore, this study analyzes if there is a difference in public stigma shown by the general population toward informal caregivers of care recipients aged 65 years or older based on the observed caregiver’s gender or working status. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany. Data from 1038 adult participants from the general population in Germany were assessed with an Online-Survey. They were recruited with a quota-system based on the German micro census. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 16 vignettes describing a caregiving situation, which varied in the caregiver’s gender and working status, and care recipient’s gender and type of impairment. After reading the vignette, they were asked to provide sociodemographic information and complete three questionnaires on public stigma assessing their emotional (Emotional Reactions), behavioral (Social Distance) and cognitive reaction (Statements on informal caregivers) to the caregiver described in the vignette. Regression analyses, adjusted for sociodemographic data of the participants, were conducted. Results Findings indicated an association between reading about male caregivers and increased social distance, compared with reading about female caregivers. Reading about working caregivers was associated with decreased social distance and increased appreciative statements, compared to reading about non-working caregivers. Analyses after stratifying by gender of the caregiver in the vignette indicated an association between reading about female working caregivers and increased appreciative statements, compared to reading about female non-working caregivers. When stratifying by working status, an association was found between reading about male working caregivers and increased social distance, when compared to reading about female working caregivers. Conclusions This study’s findings indicate that gender and working status of the perceived informal caregivers are of relevance to the public stigma directed towards these caregivers. Male and non-working informal caregivers were shown more public stigma than female and working informal caregivers. Thus, interventions to reduce public stigma, in particular towards male and non-working caregivers, are recommended.