Positive Aspects of Caregiving Are Associated With Lower Risk of Frailty and Sleep Disruption in the National Study of Caregiving.
Nationally representative
Population-based
Positive emotions
Practical burden
Journal
Innovation in aging
ISSN: 2399-5300
Titre abrégé: Innov Aging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101703706
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
02
2022
entrez:
21
10
2022
pubmed:
22
10
2022
medline:
22
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Older adult caregivers have compounded risk for adverse health outcomes; however, evidence investigating the association between caregiving and frailty has been limited. In the National Study of Caregiving (NSOC), we examined the cross-sectional association between caregiving experiences and frailty and sleep disruption. We included 621 caregivers aged 65 and older from the 2011 NSOC round. They completed a phone interview, including 36 items about caregiving. Using principal component analysis, we identified 3 caregiving components: general burden, positive emotions, and financial-led burden. Frailty was assessed via low energy, shrinking, weakness, reduced activity, and poor self-rated health. Sleep disruption was assessed with 2 questions regarding sleep interruption and trouble falling back asleep. In models adjusted for age, sex, education, depression and anxiety symptoms, and medical conditions, positive emotions were associated with a reduced relative risk of frailty (relative risk [RR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90, 0.99) while general burden (proportional odds ratio [POR] = 1.96, 95% CI 1.30, 2.93) and financial-led burden (POR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.22, 3.06) were associated with sleep interruption. Caregiver burden was associated with increased frailty and sleep interruption. Positive emotions were associated with decreased frailty risk. Interventions aimed at reducing the burden and increasing positive emotions in caregivers may improve frailty outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background and Objectives
UNASSIGNED
Older adult caregivers have compounded risk for adverse health outcomes; however, evidence investigating the association between caregiving and frailty has been limited. In the National Study of Caregiving (NSOC), we examined the cross-sectional association between caregiving experiences and frailty and sleep disruption.
Research Design and Methods
UNASSIGNED
We included 621 caregivers aged 65 and older from the 2011 NSOC round. They completed a phone interview, including 36 items about caregiving. Using principal component analysis, we identified 3 caregiving components: general burden, positive emotions, and financial-led burden. Frailty was assessed via low energy, shrinking, weakness, reduced activity, and poor self-rated health. Sleep disruption was assessed with 2 questions regarding sleep interruption and trouble falling back asleep.
Results
UNASSIGNED
In models adjusted for age, sex, education, depression and anxiety symptoms, and medical conditions, positive emotions were associated with a reduced relative risk of frailty (relative risk [RR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90, 0.99) while general burden (proportional odds ratio [POR] = 1.96, 95% CI 1.30, 2.93) and financial-led burden (POR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.22, 3.06) were associated with sleep interruption.
Discussion and Implications
UNASSIGNED
Caregiver burden was associated with increased frailty and sleep interruption. Positive emotions were associated with decreased frailty risk. Interventions aimed at reducing the burden and increasing positive emotions in caregivers may improve frailty outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36267323
doi: 10.1093/geroni/igac058
pii: igac058
pmc: PMC9579720
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
igac058Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
Références
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019 Jun 6;21(7):59
pubmed: 31172302
J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(11):892-7
pubmed: 19841840
Geriatr Nurs. 2017 Jan - Feb;38(1):57-62
pubmed: 27520990
Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 May;117:103873
pubmed: 33621722
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015 Nov;70(11):1427-34
pubmed: 26297656
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013 Jul;68(7):979-85
pubmed: 23917663
Int J Nurs Sci. 2020 Jul 25;7(4):438-445
pubmed: 33195757
Int J Nurs Pract. 2015 Jun;21(3):321-7
pubmed: 24713077
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jun;14(6):392-7
pubmed: 23764209
J Appl Gerontol. 2017 May;36(5):519-536
pubmed: 25873454
J Epidemiol. 2021 Apr 5;31(4):265-271
pubmed: 32307351
Gerontologist. 2021 Jul 13;61(5):650-660
pubmed: 33847355
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 May;26(5):589-597
pubmed: 29525474
J Frailty Aging. 2018;7(3):170-175
pubmed: 30095147
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 1;:
pubmed: 29856091
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S10-6
pubmed: 24833580
Front Immunol. 2020 Oct 14;11:570083
pubmed: 33162985
BMC Geriatr. 2018 Nov 26;18(1):291
pubmed: 30477431
JAMA. 2014 Mar 12;311(10):1052-60
pubmed: 24618967
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;22(10):1029-38
pubmed: 23768681
Gerontologist. 2005 Dec;45(6):802-11
pubmed: 16326662
Rev Saude Publica. 2020 Jan 31;54:17
pubmed: 32022145
Rev Bras Enferm. 2017 Jul-Aug;70(4):822-829
pubmed: 28793114
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1999 May;54(3):P189-98
pubmed: 10363041
J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(1):111-118
pubmed: 30569079
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Mar;62(2):P126-37
pubmed: 17379673
Gerontologist. 2015 Jun;55 Suppl 1:S140-5
pubmed: 26055775
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014 Jan-Feb;58(1):69-73
pubmed: 23978328
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 Mar;22(3):551-558.e1
pubmed: 32988763
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2018 Nov;31(6):329-335
pubmed: 30260715
Clin Gerontol. 2018 Mar-Apr;41(2):158-166
pubmed: 28967849
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
pubmed: 14583691
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e199891
pubmed: 31441938