Home › Research › Disparities
Racial Differences in Caregiving: Variation by Relationship Type and Dementia Care Status
Adrian N S Badana, Victoria Marino, William E Haley. Journal of aging and health, 2017-11-23
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
After covariate adjustment, there were few significant racial differences in caregiving strain, health, and service use. Dementia caregivers reported greater strain, and there were three-way interactions among relationship type, dementia care status, and race for physical strain and emotional stress. Previous findings suggesting substantial racial differences in caregiver strain, which have primarily come from convenience samples that combined care relationship types, were not replicated. Racial and ethnic differences in caregiving may be context-specific. Historical changes in caregiving should be examined in future research.
Key findings
- After covariate adjustment, there were few significant racial differences in caregiving strain, health, and service use.
- Dementia caregivers reported greater strain, and there were three-way interactions among relationship type, dementia care status, and race for physical strain and emotional stress.
- Previous findings suggesting substantial racial differences in caregiver strain, which have primarily come from convenience samples that combined care relationship types, were not replicated.
- Racial and ethnic differences in caregiving may be context-specific.
- Historical changes in caregiving should be examined in future research.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 59 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of aging and health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29254432) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 59 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 59 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Badana, A. N. S., Marino, V., & Haley, W. E. (2019). Racial Differences in Caregiving: Variation by Relationship Type and Dementia Care Status. Journal of aging and health. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264317743611
Vancouver
Badana ANS, Marino V, Haley WE. Racial Differences in Caregiving: Variation by Relationship Type and Dementia Care Status. Journal of aging and health. 2019. doi:10.1177/0898264317743611. PMID: 29254432.
BibTeX
@article{badana2019-29254432,
author = {Badana, Adrian N S and Marino, Victoria and Haley, William E},
title = {{Racial Differences in Caregiving: Variation by Relationship Type and Dementia Care Status}},
journal = {Journal of aging and health},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1177/0898264317743611},
pmid = {29254432},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264317743611}
}
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.