Geographic disparities in unpaid caregiving

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emma Kathryn Boswell MPH, Monique J. Brown PhD, Lorie Donelle PhD, Nicholas Yell PhD, Taryn Farrell MPH, Peiyin Hung PhD, Elizabeth Crouch PhD
{"title":"Geographic disparities in unpaid caregiving","authors":"Emma Kathryn Boswell MPH,&nbsp;Monique J. Brown PhD,&nbsp;Lorie Donelle PhD,&nbsp;Nicholas Yell PhD,&nbsp;Taryn Farrell MPH,&nbsp;Peiyin Hung PhD,&nbsp;Elizabeth Crouch PhD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>An updated, nationally representative examination of rural–urban differences in the experiences, health, and well-being of caregivers is needed; previous research on this topic uses older data or has limited generalizability. This study examines rural–urban differences in the characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The 2021–2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (<i>n</i> = 44,274 unpaid caregivers) was used, with rurality defined according to the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Chi-square tests compared rural–urban differences in these caregivers’ characteristics, including demographic factors, caregiving intensity (e.g., weekly hours spent caregiving, reason for caregiving, past-month ADL/IADL assistance), caregiver's health (e.g., general health status and past month physical health, mental health, and limited activity), and caregiver's health behavior (chronic illness, smoking status, binge drinking, and annual checkups).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Compared to urban caregivers, rural caregivers were more likely to have at least one chronic condition (58.3% vs. 53.2%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), be obese (42.9% vs. 37.5%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), be a smoker (24.2% vs. 15.5%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), and less likely to be a binge drinker (12.7% vs. 15.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.003). Compared to urban caregivers, rural caregivers were more likely to report their general health status as fair/poor (20.3% vs. 17.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.0003) and were more likely to report 14 or more days of poor physical health in the past month (15.6% vs. 12.0%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding geographic disparities in the experiences and context of unpaid caregiving is needed to improve their overall well-being and health. Future research will be necessary to determine factors associated with these outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jrh.70039","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

An updated, nationally representative examination of rural–urban differences in the experiences, health, and well-being of caregivers is needed; previous research on this topic uses older data or has limited generalizability. This study examines rural–urban differences in the characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers.

Methods

The 2021–2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n = 44,274 unpaid caregivers) was used, with rurality defined according to the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Chi-square tests compared rural–urban differences in these caregivers’ characteristics, including demographic factors, caregiving intensity (e.g., weekly hours spent caregiving, reason for caregiving, past-month ADL/IADL assistance), caregiver's health (e.g., general health status and past month physical health, mental health, and limited activity), and caregiver's health behavior (chronic illness, smoking status, binge drinking, and annual checkups).

Findings

Compared to urban caregivers, rural caregivers were more likely to have at least one chronic condition (58.3% vs. 53.2%; p < 0.0001), be obese (42.9% vs. 37.5%; p < 0.0001), be a smoker (24.2% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.0001), and less likely to be a binge drinker (12.7% vs. 15.3%; p = 0.003). Compared to urban caregivers, rural caregivers were more likely to report their general health status as fair/poor (20.3% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.0003) and were more likely to report 14 or more days of poor physical health in the past month (15.6% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Understanding geographic disparities in the experiences and context of unpaid caregiving is needed to improve their overall well-being and health. Future research will be necessary to determine factors associated with these outcomes.

无偿看护的地域差异
需要对农村和城市在护理人员的经历、健康和福祉方面的差异进行最新的、具有全国代表性的调查;以前关于这一主题的研究使用的是较旧的数据,或者泛化能力有限。本研究考察了农村和城市在看护者的特征、经历和健康方面的差异。方法采用2021-2022年行为风险因素监测系统(n = 44,274名无报酬照顾者),农村性根据2013年国家卫生统计中心城乡分类方案定义。卡方检验比较了这些照护者特征的城乡差异,包括人口统计学因素、照护强度(例如,每周照护时间、照护原因、过去一个月的ADL/IADL协助)、照护者健康(例如,一般健康状况和过去一个月的身体健康、心理健康和有限的活动)以及照护者的健康行为(慢性病、吸烟状况、酗酒、残疾和残疾)。以及每年的体检)。与城市护理人员相比,农村护理人员更有可能患有至少一种慢性疾病(58.3%比53.2%;p & lt;0.0001),肥胖(42.9% vs. 37.5%;p & lt;0.0001),吸烟(24.2% vs. 15.5%;p & lt;0.0001),并且不太可能成为酗酒者(12.7% vs. 15.3%;P = 0.003)。与城市护理人员相比,农村护理人员更有可能报告自己的总体健康状况为一般/较差(20.3%比17.0%,p = 0.0003),并且更有可能报告过去一个月有14天或更长时间的身体健康状况不佳(15.6%比12.0%,p <;0.0001)。结论:了解无偿照护经历和背景的地域差异是改善他们整体福祉和健康的必要条件。未来的研究将有必要确定与这些结果相关的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信