Differences in Caregiving Outcomes and Experiences by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Boehmer, Ulrike; Clark, Melissa A.; Heeren, Timothy; Showalter, Elizabeth; Fredman, Lisa

doi:10.1089/lgbt.2017.0144

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might mean that from a cross-country perspective, females are obliged to provide care more than males, regardless of the typology of welfare regime, thus exposing girls to a higher risk of experiencing negative feelings and health problems related to caregiving provision [ 4 ]. Moreover, the survey data resulting from transgender/non-binary AYC respondents are in line with other studies in which transgender/non-binary young people were found to be more at risk of emotional distress in association with their caring role than cisgender and heterosexual AYCs [ 55 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…First, since the perception of negative caregiving outcomes could be influenced by the strength of the intergenerational relationship between grandchild and GrP, such a relationship and the cohesion of the intergenerational ties within the household environment merit attention in future research, foreseeing specific questions on this aspect. Moreover, more research on AYCs from a gender identity perspective would help identify the frailties of female and transgender/non-binary AYCs, and mitigate negative repercussions on AYCs' mental health and well-being [38,41,42,55].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Positive and Negative Impacts of Caring among Adolescents Caring for Grandparents. Results from an Online Survey in Six European Countries and Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice

Santini

Socci

D’Amen

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although up to 8% of European youngsters carry out high-intensity care for a family member, adolescent young carers (AYCs), especially those caring for their grandparents (GrPs), remain an under-researched group. This study aimed at addressing the current knowledge gap by carrying out an online survey in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The analysis included a final sample of 817 AYCs aged 15–17 years old. AYCs of grandparents (GrPs) were compared to AYCs of other care recipients (OCRs), in order to identify any difference in positive and negative caregiving outcomes and exposure factors between the two groups. Linear or logistic regression models were built, and multivariate analyses were repeated, including a fixed effect on the country variable. AYCs of GrPs experienced more positive caregiving outcomes than AYCs of OCRs across all six countries. Being female or non-binary, and having a migration background, were associated with more negative outcomes, regardless of the relationship with the care recipient. Further research on intergenerational caregiving outcomes is recommended for shaping measures and policies, which preserve the intergenerational emotional bonds, whilst protecting AYCs from inappropriate responsibilities, undermining their mental health and well-being.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and Negative Impacts of Caring among Adolescents Caring for Grandparents. Results from an Online Survey in Six European Countries and Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice

Santini

Socci

D’Amen

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also possible that women are more intensely involved with care-giving tasks than men (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2006), or that the people who women care for have higher needs than those being looked after by men. In addition, we found that lesbian women were more likely to be a carer than gay men, consistent with previous research on midlife and older LGBT adults (Croghan et al, 2014), although not all studies have found such a gender difference among lesbian and gay people (Boehmer et al, 2018;Fredriksen-Goldsen et al, 2011;Grossman et al, 2007;Metlife Mature Market Institute, 2010). It is also possible that gender discrimination may be an additional challenge faced by women caring for other women, and could potentially account for the greater impact of care-giving demands (Barker, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Informal care‐givers who provide unpaid care to family, friends and partners experiencing health or mobility issues provide a valuable service to society that would otherwise need to be provided by a health or social care service (Fredriksen‐Goldsen & Hoy‐Ellis, ; Fredriksen‐Goldsen, Kim, Muraco, & Mincer, ). Many of the people who provide informal care are older lesbian women and gay men (Fredriksen, ; Fredriksen‐Goldsen et al, ; Grossman, D'Augelli, & Dragowski, ; Shippy, ), with some studies finding that lesbian and gay people are more likely to be care‐givers than non‐lesbian and gay people (Boehmer, Clark, Heeren, Showalter, & Fredman, ; Croghan, Moone, & Olson, ; Metlife Mature Market Institute, ). This is likely to be in part due to the marginalisation from mainstream services and society experienced by lesbian and gay people, resulting in their need to obtain support and care from within the lesbian and gay communities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health, well‐being, and social support in older Australian lesbian and gay care‐givers

Alba

Lyons

Waling

et al. 2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informal care‐givers play an important role in society, and many of the people who provide this care are lesbian women and gay men. Being a care‐giver is known to be associated with poorer health and well‐being, and lesbian and gay care‐givers report experiences of stigma and discrimination in the care‐giving context. This study involved a survey of 230 lesbian women and 503 gay men aged 60 years and over living in Australia, of which 218 were care‐givers. We compared care‐givers to non‐caregivers on a range of health and well‐being measures, including psychological distress, positive mental health, physical health and social support. While we found no significant differences between these two groups, we further compared care‐givers who were caring for an LGBTI person to those who were caring for a non‐LGBTI person. Among the lesbian women, care‐givers of an LGBTI person reported feeling less supported in their carer role and reported lower levels of social support more generally. They were also lower on positive mental health and physical health indicators. Among the gay men, care‐givers of an LGBTI person also reported feeling less supported in their carer role, but there were no differences in reported levels of social support more generally or health and well‐being compared to those caring for a non‐LGBTI person. Overall, results from this study suggest that older lesbian and gay care‐givers may be facing some challenges related to their well‐being and feeling supported, especially if they are caring for another LGBTI person.

show abstract

“…The importance of considering the intersections among gender, sexual orientation, and other sociodemographic factors was also highlighted in the survey of a cross-sectional sample of members of the National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregivers who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender were more likely to be racially and ethnically diverse and represent lower socioeconomic classes than those who did not [ 69 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mHealth Interventions to Support Caregivers of Older Adults: Equity-Focused Systematic Review

Garnett¹,

Northwood²,

Ting³

et al. 2022

JMIR Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Informal caregivers, hereafter referred to as caregivers, provide support to older adults so that they can age safely at home. The decision to become a caregiver can be influenced by individual factors, such as personal choice, or societal factors such as social determinants of health, including household income, employment status, and culture-specific gender roles. Over time, caregivers’ health can be negatively affected by their caregiving roles. Although programs exist to support caregivers, the availability and appropriateness of services do not match caregivers’ expressed needs. Research suggests that supportive interventions offered through mobile health (mHealth) technologies have the potential to increase caregivers’ access to supportive services. However, a knowledge gap remains regarding the extent to which social determinants of health are considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions intended to support the caregivers of older adults. Objective This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to determine how health equity is considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions for caregivers of older adults using Cochrane Equity’s PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, language, occupation, gender, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status–plus age, disability, and sexual orientation) framework and synthesize evidence of the impacts of the identified caregiver-focused mHealth interventions. Methods A systematic review was conducted using 5 databases. Articles published between January 2010 and June 2021 were included if they evaluated or explored the impact of mHealth interventions on the health and well-being of informal caregivers of older adults. mHealth interventions were defined as supportive services, for example, education, that caregivers of older adults accessed via mobile or wireless devices. Results In total, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The interventions evaluated sought to connect caregivers with services, facilitate caregiving, and promote caregivers’ health and well-being. The PROGRESS-Plus framework factors were mainly considered in the results, discussion, and limitations sections of the included studies. Some PROGRESS-Plus factors such as sexual orientation, religion, and occupation, received little to no consideration across any phase of the intervention design, implementation, or evaluation. Overall, the findings of this review suggest that mHealth interventions were positively received by study participants. Such interventions have the potential to reduce caregiver burden and positively affect caregivers’ physical and mental health while supporting them as caregivers. The study findings highlight the importance of making support available to help facilitate caregivers’ use of mHealth interventions, as well as in the use of appropriate language and text. Conclusions The successful uptake and spread of mHealth interventions to support caregivers of older adults will depend on creating opportunities for the inclusive involvement of a broad range of stakeholders at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation.

show abstract

Differences in Caregiving Outcomes and Experiences by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Abstract: Caregiving itself is universal, yet LGBT caregivers differed demographically and were more likely to report financial strain compared with non-LGBT caregivers.

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

Positive and Negative Impacts of Caring among Adolescents Caring for Grandparents. Results from an Online Survey in Six European Countries and Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice

Positive and Negative Impacts of Caring among Adolescents Caring for Grandparents. Results from an Online Survey in Six European Countries and Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice

Health, well‐being, and social support in older Australian lesbian and gay care‐givers

mHealth Interventions to Support Caregivers of Older Adults: Equity-Focused Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About