2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Health, Work, and Social Problems in Spanish Informal Caregivers: Does Gender Matter? (The CUIDAR-SE Study)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          (1) Background: The aim of this study was (i) to analyze problems faced by informal caregivers in three areas of their life: health, work and finances, and family and social relationships, (ii) to investigate the main determinants of these problems, and (iii) to explore differences between men and women. (2) Methods: The study population consisted of people aged ≥18 years living in a family home who were providing unpaid care to a dependent person in the same or another home and who were registered as caregivers with the Primary Health Care District of Granada or the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa. Several logistic regression models were built to analyze the likelihood of caregivers experiencing health, work-related, or social problems as a result of their caregiving responsibilities. (3) Results: Informal female caregivers were more likely to experience problems attributed to caregiving than their male counterparts, particularly in the areas of health and work. Additional factors associated with an increased likelihood of problems were low perceived social support, performance of ungratifying tasks, and fewer years as a caregiver. (4) Conclusions: Informal caregivers in Spain face significant problems as a result of their caregiving duties, and the impact on men and women is different. Policies and interventions to mitigate the negative effects of unpaid caregiving should incorporate differential strategies to meet the specific needs of male and female caregivers in different caregiving contexts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak

          Policies and public health efforts have not addressed the gendered impacts of disease outbreaks. 1 The response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears no different. We are not aware of any gender analysis of the outbreak by global health institutions or governments in affected countries or in preparedness phases. Recognising the extent to which disease outbreaks affect women and men differently is a fundamental step to understanding the primary and secondary effects of a health emergency on different individuals and communities, and for creating effective, equitable policies and interventions. Although sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 show equal numbers of cases between men and women so far, there seem to be sex differences in mortality and vulnerability to the disease. 2 Emerging evidence suggests that more men than women are dying, potentially due to sex-based immunological 3 or gendered differences, such as patterns and prevalence of smoking. 4 However, current sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, cautioning against early assumptions. Simultaneously, data from the State Council Information Office in China suggest that more than 90% of health-care workers in Hubei province are women, emphasising the gendered nature of the health workforce and the risk that predominantly female health workers incur. 5 The closure of schools to control COVID-19 transmission in China, Hong Kong, Italy, South Korea, and beyond might have a differential effect on women, who provide most of the informal care within families, with the consequence of limiting their work and economic opportunities. Travel restrictions cause financial challenges and uncertainty for mostly female foreign domestic workers, many of whom travel in southeast Asia between the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. 6 Consideration is further needed of the gendered implications of quarantine, such as whether women and men's different physical, cultural, security, and sanitary needs are recognised. Experience from past outbreaks shows the importance of incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts to improve the effectiveness of health interventions and promote gender and health equity goals. During the 2014–16 west African outbreak of Ebola virus disease, gendered norms meant that women were more likely to be infected by the virus, given their predominant roles as caregivers within families and as front-line health-care workers. 7 Women were less likely than men to have power in decision making around the outbreak, and their needs were largely unmet. 8 For example, resources for reproductive and sexual health were diverted to the emergency response, contributing to a rise in maternal mortality in a region with one of the highest rates in the world. 9 During the Zika virus outbreak, differences in power between men and women meant that women did not have autonomy over their sexual and reproductive lives, 10 which was compounded by their inadequate access to health care and insufficient financial resources to travel to hospitals for check-ups for their children, despite women doing most of the community vector control activities. 11 Given their front-line interaction with communities, it is concerning that women have not been fully incorporated into global health security surveillance, detection, and prevention mechanisms. Women's socially prescribed care roles typically place them in a prime position to identify trends at the local level that might signal the start of an outbreak and thus improve global health security. Although women should not be further burdened, particularly considering much of their labour during health crises goes underpaid or unpaid, incorporating women's voices and knowledge could be empowering and improve outbreak preparedness and response. Despite the WHO Executive Board recognising the need to include women in decision making for outbreak preparedness and response, 12 there is inadequate women's representation in national and global COVID-19 policy spaces, such as in the White House Coronavirus Task Force. 13 © 2020 Miguel Medina/Contributor/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. If the response to disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 is to be effective and not reproduce or perpetuate gender and health inequities, it is important that gender norms, roles, and relations that influence women's and men's differential vulnerability to infection, exposure to pathogens, and treatment received, as well as how these may differ among different groups of women and men, are considered and addressed. We call on governments and global health institutions to consider the sex and gender effects of the COVID-19 outbreak, both direct and indirect, and conduct an analysis of the gendered impacts of the multiple outbreaks, incorporating the voices of women on the front line of the response to COVID-19 and of those most affected by the disease within preparedness and response policies or practices going forward.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Caregiver burden: a clinical review.

            Caregiver burden may result from providing care for patients with chronic illness. It can occur in any of the 43.5 million individuals providing support to midlife and older adults. Caregiver burden is frequently overlooked by clinicians. To outline the epidemiology of caregiver burden; to provide strategies to diagnose, assess, and intervene for caregiver burden in clinical practice; and to evaluate evidence on interventions intended to avert or mitigate caregiver burden and related caregiver distress. Cohort studies examining the relation between demographic and social risk factors and adverse outcomes of caregiver burden were reviewed. Review of recent meta-analyses to summarize the effectiveness of caregiver burden interventions were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, AgeLine, and the Cochrane Library. Risk factors for caregiver burden include female sex, low educational attainment, residence with the care recipient, higher number of hours spent caregiving, depression, social isolation, financial stress, and lack of choice in being a caregiver. Practical assessment strategies for caregiver burden exist to evaluate caregivers, their care recipients, and the care recipient's overall caregiving needs. A variety of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions have shown mild to modest efficacy in mitigating caregiver burden and associated manifestations of caregiver distress in high-quality meta-analyses. Psychosocial interventions include support groups or psychoeducational interventions for caregivers of dementia patients (effect size, 0.09-0.23). Pharmacologic interventions include use of anticholinergics or antipsychotic medications for dementia or dementia-related behaviors in the care recipient (effect size, 0.18-0.27). Many studies showed improvements in caregiver burden-associated symptoms (eg, mood, coping, self-efficacy) even when caregiver burden itself was minimally improved. Physicians have a responsibility to recognize caregiver burden. Caregiver assessment and intervention should be tailored to the individual circumstances and contexts in which caregiver burden occurs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis.

              Providing care for a frail older adult has been described as a stressful experience that may erode psychological well-being and physical health of caregivers. In this meta-analysis, the authors integrated findings from 84 articles on differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in perceived stress, depression, general subjective well-being, physical health, and self-efficacy. The largest differences were found with regard to depression (g = .58), stress (g = .55), self-efficacy (g = .54), and general subjective well-being (g = -.40). Differences in the levels of physical health in favor of noncaregivers were statistically significant, but small (g = .18). However, larger differences were found between dementia caregivers and noncaregivers than between heterogeneous samples of caregivers and noncaregivers. Differences were also influenced by the quality of the study, relationship of caregiver to the care recipient, gender, and mean age of caregivers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                08 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 18
                : 14
                : 7332
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departamento de Análisis Económico y Seminario de Investigación en Economía y Salud (SIES), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 45071 Toledo, Spain; LuzMaria.Pena@ 123456uclm.es (L.M.P.-L.); Juan.OlivaMoreno@ 123456uclm.es (J.O.-M.)
                [2 ]Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP), 18080 Granada, Spain; mariadelmar.garcia.easp@ 123456juntadeandalucia.es
                [3 ]Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada ibs. Granada, 18012 Granada, Spain
                [4 ]Departamento de Salud del Gobierno Vasco, Delegación de Salud de Gipuzkoa, 20010 San Sebastián, Spain; mlarranagapadilla@ 123456gmail.com
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: maria.rio.easp@ 123456juntadeandalucia.es ; Tel.: +34-958-027-400
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7224-2189
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8997-0307
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3108-4633
                Article
                ijerph-18-07332
                10.3390/ijerph18147332
                8306791
                34299782
                c68f1dff-c1c4-48b2-ad4f-6b5de1cc270b
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 31 May 2021
                : 07 July 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                informal care,caregiver,gender differences,health problems,work problems,social problems
                Public health
                informal care, caregiver, gender differences, health problems, work problems, social problems

                Comments

                Comment on this article