Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Mar 1;176(3):372–379. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7664

A National Profile of Family and Unpaid Caregivers Who Assist Older Adults With Health Care Activities

Jennifer L Wolff 1, Brenda C Spillman 1, Vicki A Freedman 1, Judith D Kasper 1
PMCID: PMC4802361  NIHMSID: NIHMS768158  PMID: 26882031

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Family and unpaid caregivers commonly help older adults who are at high risk for poorly coordinated care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how caregivers' involvement in older adults' health care activities relates to caregiving responsibilities, supportive services use, and caregiving-related effects.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1739 family and unpaid caregivers of 1171 community-dwelling older adults with disabilities who participated in the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) and National Study of Caregiving (NSOC).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Caregiving-related effects, including emotional, physical, and financial difficulty; participation restrictions in valued activities; and work productivity loss.

EXPOSURES

Caregivers assisting older adults who provide substantial, some, or no help with health care, defined by coordinating care and managing medications (help with both, either, or neither activity, respectively).

RESULTS

Based on NHATS and NSOC responses from 1739 family and unpaid caregivers of 1171 older adults with disabilities, weighted estimates were produced that accounted for the sampling designs of each survey. From these weighted estimates, 14.7 million caregivers assisting 7.7 million older adults, 6.5 million (44.1%) provided substantial help, 4.4 million (29.8%) provided some help, and 3.8 million (26.1%) provided no help with health care. Almost half (45.5%) of the caregivers providing substantial help with health care assisted an older adult with dementia. Caregivers providing substantial help with health care provided more hours of assistance per week than caregivers providing some or no help (28.1 vs 15.1 and 8.3 hours, P < .001 for both). The use of supportive services was low but was greater among caregivers providing substantial vs some or no help (26.7% vs 15.5% and 7.6%, P < .001 for both). In multivariable regression models adjusting for older adults' function and caregivers' sociodemographic and health characteristics, caregivers providing substantial help with health care were significantly more likely to experience emotional difficulty (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.20-2.66), physical difficulty (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.39-2.97), and financial difficulty (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.52-3.22) than caregivers providing no help. Compared with caregivers providing no help with health care activities, caregivers providing substantial help with health care activities were more than 5 times as likely to experience participation restrictions in valued activities (aOR, 5.32; 95% CI, 3.31-8.59) and more than 3 times as likely to experience work productivity loss (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.40-7.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Family caregivers providing substantial assistance with health care experience significant emotional difficulty and role-related effects, yet only one-quarter use supportive services.


The high costs and poor quality of care delivered to older adults with complex health needs represent a pressing concern for policy makers, clinicians, patients, and society.1,2 Almost 8 million older adults with significant disabilities live in the community with help from family and unpaid caregivers (family caregivers).3,4 Older adults' family caregivers not only provide most assistance with everyday activities3,5 but also help with a range of health care activities, such as physician visits,6,7 transitions between settings of care,8,9 medical decisions,10,11 and medical tasks, such as injections, medication management, and wound care.12 Because family caregivers are not systematically identified or routinely assessed in health care delivery,1315 little is known about the degree to which they assist with health care activities or about the nature of caregiving-related effects they may experience. A better understanding of the “workforce” of family caregivers who assist with health care activities is particularly timely and important given growing attention to the contribution of nonmedical factors to health16,17 and given reform efforts that are shifting the focus of the health care enterprise toward accountability and value.17,18

This study draws on 2 nationally representative, population-based studies that together provide insight regarding older adults and the family caregivers who assist them. We focus on caregivers' assistance with 2 prevalent and clinically important health care activities that pertain to coordinating care with health care professionals and managing medications. A recent companion analysis that exclusively examined older adults found that approximately half of those individuals receiving help with both activities had dementia.19 Our study extends this line of inquiry by examining family caregivers' perspectives and by focusing on a range of topics that may only be ascertained by speaking to a caregiver. By identifying the characteristics, responsibilities, and caregiving-related effects of family caregivers who navigate health system demands alongside or on behalf of older adults with disabilities, we seek to inform public health and health care delivery initiatives to better support family caregivers.

Methods

Data

The data that were examined in this study are publicly available, do not contain individual identifiers, and are therefore exempt from institutional review board review. Data for this study are drawn from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) and the National Study of Caregiving (NSOC), 2 linked national surveys that provide information regarding a well-defined population of older adults and their family caregivers. The NHATS is nationally representative of Americans 65 years and older. In-person interviews are conducted with study participants or with proxy respondents if the participant is unable to respond. Study participants are asked whether and how they performed daily activities in the month before the interview. Among older adults who receive assistance, a detailed helper roster lists the relationship and specific activities for each person providing assistance.

The NSOC is a nationally representative survey of family members (>95% of whom are unpaid) and other unpaid caregivers who assist older persons with disabilities. Caregivers of the NHATS participants who lived in the community and received help with mobility, self-care, or household activities for health and functioning reasons or who lived in a residential care facility with supportive services were eligible for the NSOC. The NSOC participants were identified from the NHATS helper roster on the basis of being a family member or an unpaid helper who provided assistance with mobility, self-care, household activities, transportation, or medically oriented tasks. A telephone interview was conducted with up to 5 eligible helpers for each older adult. For older adults with more than 5 eligible helpers, 5 helpers were selected at random, and the remaining helpers were considered ineligible for the NSOC.

The NSOC participants are drawn from a well-defined population of older adults and the helpers they identify (from the NHATS Other Person file). Of 7609 NHATS participants living in the community or in a residential care facility, 2423 were included in the NSOC sampling frame, and 4935 helpers met eligibility criteria for the NSOC. An NSOC nonresponse can arise from the NHATS participant (who may refuse to provide contact information for helpers) or his or her caregivers (who may refuse to participate). The NHATS participants did not provide contact information for 1573 eligible family caregivers, and 1355 of the remaining 3362 eligible family caregivers could not be located or refused to respond, yielding 68.1% and 59.7% first-stage and second-stage response rates, respectively. In total, 2007 family caregivers of 1369 older adults responded in 2011 to the NSOC.20 Because the nature of caregiving is likely to vary for older adults who live in residential care facilities owing to the availability of supportive services, we limited this study to older adults living in traditional community settings, leaving a final sample of 1739 family and unpaid caregivers of 1171 older adults with disabilities.

Measures

We examined caregivers' sociodemographic and health characteristics, the nature and intensity of care they provide, their use of supportive services, and caregiving-related effects. Caregivers' sociodemographic and health characteristics included age, sex, educational attainment, relationship to the older adult, presence of a child younger than 18 years in the household, and self-rated health status. We constructed a composite measure of older adults' cognitive and physical function. Dementia refers to probable dementia, from self-reported physician diagnosis of Alzheimer disease or dementia, the AD8 dementia screening interview (administered to proxy respondents),21 and cognitive tests to evaluate memory, orientation, and executive function.22 Severe disability refers to receipt of help with 3 or more self-care or mobility activities. Using these measures, older adults' function was categorized as no dementia or severe disability, dementia but not severe disability, no dementia but severe disability, or both dementia and severe disability.

Information regarding the nature and intensity of care provision included travel time to older adults' residence, duration of caregiving, intensity of help (measured by hours of care in the previous week), and assistance with specific tasks in domains of disability-related activities, health system logistics, and health management. Because of missing information, hours of care could not be computed using responses to the NSOC for 104 caregivers. For these caregivers, we used a hotdeck approach to impute hours of care based on older adults' function and caregivers' relationship, sex, and age (B. C. S. written communication to J. L.W., June 27, 2015). Measures of physical, financial, and emotional difficulties associated with providing care were constructed based on reported levels of difficulty in each domain (ratings of none, 1–2, and 3–5, respectively, were categorized as little or none, some, and substantial).4 Participation restrictions refer to activities reported as being very or somewhat important to the caregiver that were limited in the prior month because of caregiving. Missed work refers to caregivers' reports of any missed time from work because of caregiving in the prior month among caregivers who were working for pay. In addition, we constructed a summary measure of work productivity loss that incorporated absenteeism (missed hours of work because of caregiving in relation to typical hours worked) and presenteeism (effect of caregiving on productivity when at work).23 Caregivers' use of supportive services was examined using a 1-year reference period.

Involvement in health care activities refers to care coordination and medication management. Care coordination was defined by direct interactions with health care professionals. Caregivers who were identified by older adults as “sitting in with them” at physician visits (from the NHATS) or who reported that they spoke to or emailed medical professionals about older adults' care (from the NSOC) were categorized as helping with care coordination. Medication management refers to caregivers from the NSOC who reported that they helped older adults “keep track of medications” or “take shots or injections.” Using these data elements, we constructed mutually exclusive categories to summarize involvement in health care activities as follows: (1) no help (neither care coordination nor medications) (n = 364), (2) some help (care coordination but not medication management [n = 338] or medication management but not care coordination [n = 162]), or (3) substantial help (assisting with both care coordination and medication management) (n = 875).

Data Analysis and Estimation

We first present the numbers and characteristics of family and unpaid caregivers who assist older adults. We then describe the nature and intensity of care provided by caregivers as expressed by hours of care per week and types of activities for which help is provided across domains of disability-related activities, health system interactions, and health management tasks. We next evaluate caregiving-related emotional, physical, and financial difficulty; participation effects in valued activities; work productivity loss; and the use of supportive services, stratified by the degree of caregiver assistance with health care activities. Finally, we use multivariable regression models to examine how involvement in older adults' health care activities is associated with caregiving-related effects after adjusting for older adults' function and caregivers' sociodemographic and health characteristics.

Observations from the NHATS and NSOC are weighted to produce nationally representative estimates and to account for the complex sampling designs of each survey. Detailed weights released with the NSOC and used to generate population estimates in this study use information from the NHATS to adjust for differential probabilities of selection at both the NHATS sample person and caregiver levels.20 All analyses were conducted with statistical software (SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute Inc) using survey sampling weights and procedures that account for the complex sampling strategy.

Results

Drawing on weighted estimates from linked nationally representative disability and family caregiver surveys, we find that 14.7 million family and unpaid caregivers assisted 7.7 million community-dwelling older adults with daily activities for health and functioning reasons in 2011. Of these caregivers, 6.5 million (44.1%) provided substantial help, 4.4 million (29.8%) provided some help, and 3.8 million (26.1%) provided no help with health care activities (Table 1). Caregivers who provided substantial help with health care activities were comparatively more likely to be female and adult children than caregivers who provided some or no help, respectively. Caregivers providing substantial help with health care activities were older than caregivers who provided no health care help and were less likely to rate their health as excellent or very good than caregivers who provided some help. Caregivers providing substantial help with health care activities were significantly more likely than caregivers providing no or some health care help to assist an older adult with both dementia and severe disability (21.2% vs 9.4% and 7.5%, P < .001 for both) or with dementia only (24.3% vs 14.3% and 13.1%), while the proportion assisting an older adult with severe disability was comparable across the 3 groups (13.1% vs 12.9% and 9.1%, respectively). Among older adults receiving substantial help with health care activities, 45.5% (24.3% plus 21.2%) had dementia, and 34.3% (13.1% plus 21.2%) had severe disability.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Older Adults' Family and Unpaid Caregivers

Help With Health Care Activities
Substantial Help Some Help No Help



Caregiver Characteristic % [Reference] % P Value % P Value
No. of caregivers (row %), millionsa 6.5 (44.1) 4.4 (29.8) NA 3.8 (26.1) NA

Age, mean (SE), y 57.2 (0.7) 55.3 (1.2) .16 53.4 (1.4) <.01

Female sex 69.3 56.6 <.001 56.8 <.001

Educational attainmentb

 ≤High school 40.5 43.3 .43 48.1 .17


 Some college 35.5 31.4 31.0


 ≥College 24.0 25.4 20.9

Self-rated health status

 Excellent or very good 44.5 56.1 <.01 53.5 .11


 Good 31.1 24.4 28.5


 Fair or poor 24.5 19.5 18.0

Presence of a child <18 y old in the household 18.3 16.4 .49 13.8 .13

Relationship to the older adult

 Spouse 26.2 25.9 .03 15.3 <.001


 Daughter or son 54.2 45.6 34.7


 Other relative 16.7 23.9 31.6


 Nonrelative 3.0 4.6 18.4

Older adults' functionc

 No dementia or severe disability 41.5 63.3 <.001 70.3 <.001


 Dementia but not severe disability 24.3 14.3 13.1


 No dementia but severe disability 13.1 12.9 9.1


 Both dementia and severe disability 21.2 9.4 7.5

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

a

Unweighted sample, with 875 providing substantial help, 500 providing some help, and 364 providing no help.

b

Educational attainment is from the National Study of Caregiving for nonspousal caregivers (n = 1332) and from the National Health and Aging Trends Study Other Person file for spouses (n = 393). Information regarding educational attainment wasmissing for 14 caregivers.

c

Dementia refers to possible dementia from a summary measure. Severe disability refers to receiving help with 3 or more self-care or mobility activities, including bathing, eating, dressing, toileting, transferring, and indoor mobility.

Caregivers who provided substantial help with health care were comparatively more likely to live with older adults (61.1% vs 49.4% and 37.6%, P < .01 and P < .001, respectively) (Table 2) and to provide care of greater intensity (28.1 vs 15.1 and 8.3 hours per week, P < .001 for both) than caregivers who provided some or no help with these activities. Caregivers providing substantial (vs no) help with health care were half as likely to have assisted for less than 1 year (5.4% vs 11.0%, P = .02). Caregivers providing substantial help with health care were more likely to assist with each of the specified activities that pertain to help for disability-related activities, health system logistics, and health management than caregivers providing some or no help.

Table 2.

Caregiving Circumstances and the Nature of Assistance Provided

Help With Health Care Activities
Substantial Help Some Help No Help



Caregiving Circumstance % [Reference] % P Value % P Value
Hours of care per week, mean (SE) 28.1 (1.5) 15.1 (1.3) <.001 8.3 (0.7) <.001

Travel time to older adults' residence

 Coreside 61.1 49.4 <.01 37.6 <.001


 ≤10 min 21.4 22.0 27.8


 11–30 min 15.6 25.7 30.8


 ≥31 min 1.9 2.9 3.8

Duration of caregiving, y

 <1 5.4 7.0 .22 11.0 .02


 1–4 44.1 48.1 38.0


 >4 50.4 44.9 50.9

Nature of Assistance Provided

Disability-related activity

 Shopping 96.3 89.3 <.001 82.3 <.001

 Transportation 92.4 86.2 <.001 80.4 <.001

 Housework 95.6 82.0 <.001 72.1 <.001

 Mobility 80.6 69.0 <.001 60.6 <.001

 Banking 78.1 55.7 <.001 30.2 <.001

 Self-care 70.4 43.0 <.001 31.2 <.001

Health system logistics

 Make appointments 90.8 53.1 <.001 14.8 <.001

 Order medicines 83.6 36.7 <.001 16.6 <.001

 Handle insurance issues 38.0 21.5 <.001 7.3 <.001

Health management

 Diet 45.1 24.1 <.001 15.2 <.001

 Foot care 44.1 23.9 <.001 14.1 <.001

 Skin care 38.8 23.1 <.001 7.9 <.001

 Exercise 33.0 19.6 <.001 10.1 <.001

 Dental care 28.2 9.2 <.001 3.6 <.001

Caregivers who provided substantial assistance with health care were more likely to report caregiving-related difficulties than their counterparts providing some or no help across domains of emotional difficulty (34.3% vs 27.2% and 14.6%), physical difficulty (21.6% vs 12.0% and 5.7%), and financial difficulty (23.0% vs 12.3% and 6.7%) (P < .001 for all) (Table 3). Compared with caregivers providing some or no help with health care, caregivers providing substantial help were more likely to experience reduced participation in 1 or more valued activities because of caregiving (35.3% vs 18.8% and 6.4%, P < .001 for both), as well as each of the following specific activities: visiting friends and family, going out for enjoyment, attending religious services, and participating in club meetings or group activities. Although caregiver employment did not differ by involvement in health care, working caregivers providing substantial assistance with health care were more likely to have missed work because of caregiving in the past month than working caregivers who provided some or no help (20.0% vs 7.0% and 3.5%, P < .001 for both). Work productivity loss was 3 times higher for caregivers who provided substantial assistance with health care compared with caregivers who provided some or no help (9.6% vs 3.3% and 2.9%, P < .01 and P < .001, respectively). Finally, caregivers who provided substantial assistance with health care were more likely to use supportive services than caregivers who provided some or no help (26.7% vs 15.5% and 7.6%, P < .001 for both).

Table 3.

Caregiving-Related Difficulties, Participation Effects, and Supportive Services Use

Help With Health Care Activities
Substantial Help Some Help No Help



Variable % [Reference] % P Value % P Value
Emotional difficulty related to providing carea

 Little or none 45.1 56.5 <.01 70.5 <.001


 Some 20.7 16.4 14.9


 Substantial 34.3 27.2 14.6

Physical difficulty related to providing carea

 Little or none 66.9 77.7 <.001 87.6 <.001


 Some 11.5 10.3 6.7


 Substantial 21.6 12.0 5.7

Financial difficulty related to providing carea

 Little or none 67.2 79.9 <.001 86.7 <.001


 Some 9.9 7.8 6.6


 Substantial 23.0 12.3 6.7

Caregiving effects on valued activitiesb

 Visiting friends and family 28.1 12.6 <.001 5.3 <.001

 Going out for enjoyment 20.1 9.0 <.001 2.3 <.001

 Attending religious services 14.9 4.7 <.01 0.8 <.001

 Participating in club meetings or group activities 12.9 6.0 <.001 0.5 <.001

Caregiving effects on participation in ≥1 valued activities 35.3 18.8 <.001 6.4 <.001

Works for payc 38.8 41.0 .61 41.3 .57

Caregiving effects on work, of those who work

 Missed work because of caregiving in the past monthd 20.0 7.0 <.001 3.5 <.001

 Absenteeism, missed hours because of caregivinge 2.1 0.7 .01 0.2 <.001

 Presenteeism, reduced productivity because of caregiving 7.9 2.6 <.01 2.7 <.01

Caregiving-related work productivity loss 9.6 3.3 <.01 2.9 <.001

Supportive services or assistance directed to caregiver

 Respite care 16.6 8.4 <.001 2.8 <.001

 Received training regarding how to assist older adult 9.5 6.3 .11 2.8 <.001

 Support group participation 6.5 3.0 .03 2.7 .04

Use of ≥1 supportive services 26.7 15.5 <.001 7.6 <.001
a

Responses of no difficulty are categorized as little or none, rated levels of difficulty of 1 to 2 are categorized as some, and rated levels of difficulty of 3 to 5 are categorized as substantial.

b

Reduced participation in the past month because of caregiving for activities identified as being somewhat or very important.

c

Sample includes 656 working family caregivers providing substantial help (n = 327), some help (n = 181), or no help (n = 148) with health care activities.

d

Missed work refers to anymissed time from work in the past month because of caregiving.

e

Absenteeism reflects hours of work missed because of caregiving in relation to all hours typically worked.

Caregivers' involvement in older adults' health care activities was highly associated with each of the caregiving-related effects after adjusting for older adults' function and caregivers' sociodemographic and health characteristics (Table 4). In multivariable models, caregivers who provided substantial help with health care were 1.8 times more likely to experience emotional difficulty (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.20-2.66) and more than twice as likely to experience physical difficulty (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.39-2.97) and financial difficulty (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.52-3.22) than caregivers who provided no help with health care. Caregivers who provided substantial help with health care were 5.3 times as likely to experience participation restrictions in valued activities (aOR, 5.32; 95% CI, 3.31-8.59) and, among working caregivers, were 3 times as likely to experience work productivity loss (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.40-7.02) than caregivers who provided no help with health care activities.

Table 4.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Results for Correlates of Caregiving-Related Effects

Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)a
Caregiver Characteristic Emotional Difficultyb Physical Difficultyb Financial Difficultyb Participation Restrictionsc Work Productivity Lossd
Age 0.99 (0.98 1.00) 1.01 (1.00–1.02) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.02)

Female sex 1.45 (1.10–1.92) 1.92 (1.41–2.62) 1.02 (0.72–1.43) 1.23 (0.85–1.78) 1.36 (0.75–2.47)

Educational attainment

 ≤High school 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]

 Some college 1.76 (1.34–2.31) 1.44 (1.02–2.01) 1.30 (0.86–1.96) 1.50 (1.05–2.14) 1.32 (0.71–2.45)

 ≥College 1.94 (1.43–2.64) 1.36 (0.90–2.04) 1.16 (0.67–1.98) 2.21 (1.51–3.24) 2.26 (1.09–4.70)

Self-rated health status

 Excellent or very good 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]

 Good 1.47 (1.11–1.93) 1.94 (1.38–2.72) 2.49 (1.77–3.49) 1.79 (1.28–2.50) 1.91 (1.07–3.41)

 Fair or poor 1.86 (1.30–2.67) 4.91 (3.43–7.03) 2.74 (1.90–3.96) 2.13 (1.51–3.01) 2.13 (0.98–4.60)

Presence of a child <18 y old in the household 0.79 (0.50–1.25) 1.17 (0.67–2.06) 1.06 (0.63–1.79) 0.56 (0.33–0.93) 0.68 (0.35–1.34)

Works for pay 0.93 (0.73–1.19) 0.68 (0.49–0.94) 0.98 (0.70–1.37) 0.93 (0.67–1.29) Not Applicable

Relationship to the older adult

 Spouse 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]

 Daughter or son 1.28 (0.83–1.97) 0.76 (0.56–1.04) 0.75 (0.46–1.22) 0.93 (0.64–1.36) 1.16 (0.60–2.24)

 Other relative 0.58 (0.35–0.97) 0.73 (0.47–1.11) 0.56 (0.35–0.89) 0.92 (0.57–1.47) 0.61 (0.26–1.46)

 Nonrelative 0.36 (0.17–0.76) 0.52 (0.23–1.16) 0.25 (0.09–0.72) 0.37 (0.15–0.88) 0.32 (0.05–2.22)

Older adults' functione

 No dementia or severe disability 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]

 Dementia but not severe disability 1.19 (0.83–1.69) 1.29 (0.91–1.84) 1.68 (1.09–2.59) 1.67 (1.14–2.43) 1.21 (0.70–2.11)

 No dementia but severe disability 1.51 (1.02–2.25) 2.56 (1.59–4.11) 1.59 (1.08–2.35) 1.92 (1.27–2.92) 1.56 (0.75–3.25)

 Both dementia and severe disability 1.78 (1.10–2.87) 3.12 (2.12–4.59) 1.83 (1.17–2.86) 3.02 (2.02–4.51) 1.16 (0.49–2.74)

Help with health care activities

 No help 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]

 Some help 1.43 (0.96–2.13) 1.71 (1.11–2.63) 1.37 (0.87–2.17) 2.72 (1.69–4.39) 0.85 (0.39–1.84)

 Substantial help 1.79 (1.20–2.66) 2.03 (1.39–2.97) 2.21 (1.52–3.22) 5.32 (3.31–8.59) 3.14 (1.40–7.02)
a

Adjusted for caregiver age, sex, educational attainment, self-rated health status, presence of a child younger than 18 years in the household, work responsibilities, and relationship to the older adult.

b

Difficulty related to providing care, with contrast between caregivers who rated the level of difficulty of 1 to 5 (some or substantial in Table 3) vs caregivers who indicated little or no difficulty because of caregiving.

c

Reduced participation in any of 4 valued activities (visiting friends and family, going out for enjoyment, attending religious services, and participating in club meetings or group activities) because of caregiving.

d

Refers to any work productivity loss using a composite measure encompassing absenteeism and presenteeism among caregivers working for pay (n = 656).

e

Dementia refers to probable dementia using a summary measure. Severe disability refers to receiving help with 3 or more self-care or mobility activities, including bathing, eating, dressing, toileting, transferring and indoor activity.

Discussion

We found that 6.5 million family and unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling older adults provide substantial help with health care activities. Relative to caregivers who provide some or no help, caregivers providing substantial help with health care activities assist with greater intensity (as measured by hours of care) and are significantly more likely to experience caregiving-related effects across dimensions that include physical, emotional, and financial difficulty, as well as participation restrictions and work productivity loss. Approximately 1 in 4 caregivers receives supportive services. To our knowledge, this investigation is the first nationally representative study to comprehensively examine differential caregiving-related effects for family caregivers who assist with health care activities, and the results collectively raise important questions regarding the role of caregivers within a rapidly evolving health system that seeks quality, value, and accountability in care.

Our findings contribute important insight regarding the “invisible work” of managing complex care by documenting the significant caregiving-related effects that are experienced by family and unpaid caregivers who actively manage older adults' health care. Prior studies have established the time and effort associated with managing care for persons with complex health needs for health care professionals24,25 and for patients.26,27 Our study extends existing evidence that has established the special challenges encountered by caregivers of persons with dementia.15,28,29 We found that almost half of the caregivers providing substantial help with health care activities assist an older adult with dementia. For the first time to date, we also quantify the emotional, financial, physical, participation, and work-related effects of caregiving experienced by family caregivers who interact with health care professionals and manage health care activities on behalf of or alongside older adults. Study findings indicate that the health system is well poised to serve as a point for the identification of higher-intensity caregivers, who are largely unrecognized in systems of care.13,30

Few family and unpaid caregivers used supportive services. The significant consequences associated with caregiving reported herein and in other studies15,28,30,31 underscore the need to identify and promulgate strategies that address the needs of caregivers within systems of care delivery. Effective psychosocial and coping interventions have been developed to support family caregivers,3234 but they are largely disconnected from routine health care delivery. The lack of systematic identification and support of caregivers in mainstream care means that their information and support needs are not well understood and often remain unmet.15 Available evidence (largely setting specific and anecdotal) indicates that caregivers may be poorly informed about patients' health or treatment plans10,35,36 and may experience challenges in accessing such information.3739

To our knowledge, this study provides the first national estimates of work productivity loss due to providing care to an older adult with disability, and our estimates are substantially lower than previously reported.23,40,41 Although 1 in 5 working family and unpaid caregivers who provided substantial help with health care activities missed work because of caregiving in the previous month, hours of work that were missed were few. In the aggregate, work productivity loss was largely the result of reductions in productivity when working rather than time missed from work. Work productivity loss was 3 times higher among working caregivers who provided substantial help with health care activities compared with working caregivers who provided no help or some health care help. These findings are notable in quantifying the extent to which caregiving effects extend to employers and the importance of workplace strategies and policies to better support working family caregivers such as paid family leave.42,43

As in any survey, the results herein are subject to the constraints of sample design, participant response, and questions asked. The methodological challenges of collecting information from family caregivers are not inconsequential. National surveys report wide variation in prevalence estimates and characteristics.44 The linked data sets used in this study afford several strengths in this regard because family and unpaid caregivers were identified from in-person interviews, with a well-characterized sample of older adults from a survey that was specifically designed to yield national estimates of disability.3,45 In addition, the NSOC surveyed and therefore generalizes to all family and unpaid caregivers rather than a single primary caregiver as in prior surveys.46 Although our measure of caregivers' involvement in health care activities was limited to coordination of care and management of medications, these activities are common, broadly applicable to a wide range of conditions, and of great clinical importance. Because analyses are cross-sectional, we are unable to comment on the causal processes that underlie observed caregiving-related effects or supportive services use.

Conclusions

Our study results pertain directly to calls that family members should be included as members of patients' interdisciplinary care teams47,48 and to consensus statements from professional organizations that endorse more explicit and robust partnerships with patients' family caregivers.4952 Although care is safer, more efficient, and of higher quality when delivered by a coordinated health care team,1,53,54 little attention has been directed at understanding the extent or consequences of coordination between health care professionals and family caregivers. Because the magnitude and scope of assistance provided to disabled older adults by family and unpaid caregivers far exceed those of paid caregivers3,55 and because their involvement persists across both time56 and settings of care,8,57 devising organizational strategies and health care practices to identify and more purposefully engage and support family caregivers merits greater attention by health system stakeholders seeking high-value care.

Acknowledgments

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant K01MH082885 from the National Institute of Mental Health (Dr Wolff), by grant U01AG032947 from the National Institute on Aging, and by grant 12-233-SOL-00434 from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: These sponsors were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Footnotes

Author Contributions: Dr Wolff had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Wolff, Spillman, Kasper.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Wolff, Kasper.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Wolff, Spillman.

Obtained funding: Wolff, Freedman, Kasper.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Wolff, Spillman.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Institute of Medicine . Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Institute of Medicine . Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Freedman VA, Spillman BC. Disability and care needs among older Americans. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):509–541. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Spillman BC, Wolff JL, Freedman VA, Kasper JD. Informal Caregiving for Older Americans: An Analysis of the 2011 National Survey of Caregiving. Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; Washington, DC: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Congressional Budget Office . Rising Demand for Long-term Services and Supports for Elderly People. Congressional Budget Office; Washington, DC: Jun, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wolff JL, Roter DL. Hidden in plain sight: medical visit companions as a resource for vulnerable older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(13):1409–1415. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.13.1409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wolff JL, Roter DL. Family presence in routine medical visits: a meta-analytical review. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):823–831. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Levine C, Halper D, Peist A, Gould DA. Bridging troubled waters: family caregivers, transitions, and long-term care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29(1):116–124. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Almborg AH, Ulander K, Thulin A, Berg S. Discharge planning of stroke patients: the relatives' perceptions of participation. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(6):857–865. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02600.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Torke AM, Sachs GA, Helft PR, et al. Scope and outcomes of surrogate decision making among hospitalized older adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):370–377. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Price EL, Bereknyei S, Kuby A, Levinson W, Braddock CH., III New elements for informed decision making: a qualitative study of older adults' views. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(3):335–341. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reinhard SC, Levine C, Samis S. Home Alone: Family Caregivers Providing Complex Chronic Care. AARP and United Hospital Fund; Washington, DC: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wolff JL. Family matters in health care delivery. JAMA. 2012;308(15):1529–1530. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.13366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kelly K, Wolfe N, Gibson M, Feinberg L. Listening to Family Caregivers: The Need to Include Caregiver Assessment in Medicaid Home and Community-Based Service Waiver Programs. AARP; Washington, DC: Dec, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jennings LA, Reuben DB, Evertson LC, et al. Unmet needs of caregivers of individuals referred to a dementia care program. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(2):282–289. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it's time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(suppl 2):19–31. doi: 10.1177/00333549141291S206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shortell SM. Bridging the divide between health and health care. JAMA. 2013;309(11):1121–1122. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Halfon N, Conway PH. The opportunities and challenges of a lifelong health system. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1569–1571. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1215897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wolff JL, Spillman B. Older adults receiving assistance with physician visits and prescribed medications and their family caregivers: prevalence, characteristics, and hours of care. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(suppl 1):S65–S72. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC. National Study of Caregiving (NSOC) User Guide. Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health; Baltimore, MD: Feb 13, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Galvin JE, Roe CM, Xiong C, Morris JC. Validity and reliability of the AD8 informant interview in dementia. Neurology. 2006;67(11):1942–1948. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000247042.15547.eb. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC. Classification of Persons by Dementia Status in the National Health and Aging Trends Study. Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health; Baltimore, MD: Jun 5, 2013. Technical Paper 5. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Giovannetti ER, Wolff JL, Frick KD, Boult C. Construct validity of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire across informal caregivers of chronically ill older patients. Value Health. 2009;12(6):1011–1017. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00542.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–641. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.4.635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209–214. doi: 10.1370/afm.310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gallacher K, Morrison D, Jani B, et al. Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(6):e1001473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Boyd CM, Wolff JL, Giovannetti E, et al. Healthcare task difficulty among older adults with multimorbidity. Med Care. 2014;52(suppl 3):S118–S125. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a977da. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Correlates of physical health of informal caregivers: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007;62(2):126–137. doi: 10.1093/geronb/62.2.p126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC, Wolff JL. The disproportionate impact of dementia on family and unpaid caregiving to older adults. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34(10):1642–1649. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. Caregiver burden: a clinical review. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1052–1060. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003;58(2):112–128. doi: 10.1093/geronb/58.2.p112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brodaty H, Arasaratnam C. Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(9):946–953. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Song L, Zhang L, Mood DW. Interventions with family caregivers of cancer patients: meta-analysis of randomized trials. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):317–339. doi: 10.3322/caac.20081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Helping caregivers of persons with dementia: which interventions work and how large are their effects? Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18(4):577–595. doi: 10.1017/S1041610206003462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Levine C, Albert SM, Hokenstad A, Halper DE, Hart AY, Gould DA. “This case is closed”: family caregivers and the termination of home health care services for stroke patients. Milbank Q. 2006;84(2):305–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00449.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Swan BA. A nurse learns firsthand that you may fend for yourself after a hospital stay. Health Aff (Millwood) 201231(11):2579–2582. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zulman DM, Piette JD, Jenchura EC, Asch SM, Rosland AM. Facilitating out-of-home caregiving through health information technology: survey of informal caregivers' current practices, interests, and perceived barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):123. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2472. doi:10.2196/jmir.2472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sarkar U, Bates DW. Care partners and online patient portals. JAMA. 2014;311(4):357–358. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.285825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Levine C. HIPAA and talking with family caregivers: what does the law really say? Am J Nurs. 2006;106(8):51–53. doi: 10.1097/00000446-200608000-00022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mazanec SR, Daly BJ, Douglas SL, Lipson AR. Work productivity and health of informal caregivers of persons with advanced cancer. Res Nurs Health. 2011;34(6):483–495. doi: 10.1002/nur.20461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Burton WN, Chen CY, Conti DJ, Pransky G, Edington DW. Caregiving for ill dependents and its association with employee health risks and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(10):1048–1056. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000141830.72507.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.The future of paid family leave in the USA. Lancet. 2014;384(9937):2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61101-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Feinberg L. [Accessed December 7, 2015];Keeping up with the times: supporting family caregivers with workplace leave policies. http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/ltc/2013/fmla-insight-keeping-up-with-time-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf. Published 2013.
  • 44.Giovannetti ER, Wolff JL. Cross-survey differences in national estimates of numbers of caregivers of disabled older adults. Milbank Q. 2010;88(3):310–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00602.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kasper JD, Freedman VA. Findings from the 1st round of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS): introduction to a special issue. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(suppl 1):S1–S7. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wolff JL, Kasper JD. Caregivers of frail elders: updating a national profile. Gerontologist. 2006;46(3):344–356. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.3.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.National Quality Forum . Priority Setting for Healthcare Performance Measurement: Addressing Performance Measure Gaps in Person-Centered Care and Outcomes. National Quality Forum; Washington, DC: Aug 15, 2014. final report. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Interprofessional Education Collaborative . Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice. Interprofessional Education Collaborative; Washington, DC: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association Physicians and family caregivers: a model for partnership. JAMA. 1993;269(10):1282–1284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mitnick S, Leffler C, Hood VL, American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee Family caregivers, patients and physicians: ethical guidance to optimize relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):255–260. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1206-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kelly K, Reinhard SC, Brooks-Danso A. Professional partners supporting family caregivers. Am J Nurs. 2008;108(9 suppl):6–12. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000336400.76635.db. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.McDaniel S, Campell T, Hepworth J, Lorenz A. Family-Oriented Primary Care. 2nd ed Springer; New York, NY: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hussey PS, Schneider EC, Rudin RS, Fox DS, Lai J, Pollack CE. Continuity and the costs of care for chronic disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):742–748. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(10):693–696. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-10-201105170-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Newcomer RJ, Kang T, Doty P. Allowing spouses to be paid personal care providers: spouse availability and effects on Medicaid-funded service use and expenditures. Gerontologist. 2012;52(4):517–530. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Wolff JL, Boyd CM, Gitlin LN, Bruce ML, Roter DL. Going it together: persistence of older adults' accompaniment to physician visits by a family companion. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(1):106–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03770.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vickrey BG, Mittman BS, Connor KI, et al. The effect of a disease management intervention on quality and outcomes of dementia care: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(10):713–726. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-10-200611210-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES