Abstract
AIM
Depression among caregivers of older persons is a serious concern, but it is often overlooked and neglected in developing countries. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived social support and depression in informal caregivers of community‐dwelling older persons in Chile.
Methods
We analyzed cross‐sectional secondary data on 377 dyads of community‐dwelling older persons and their informal caregivers from a nationwide survey in Chile. The Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire (FSSQ) was used to measure caregivers’ perceived social support, and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale assessed their depression.
Results
In this study, 76.9% of the caregivers perceived a high level of social support, and 46.9% were assessed as having depression. Based on multivariable analysis, factors that decrease the likelihood of being depressed are a high level of social support (odds ratio (OR) = 0.311, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.167–0.579) and having taken holidays in the past 12 months (OR = 0.513, 95%CI: 0.270–0.975). Factors that increase the likelihood of being depressed are being a female caregiver (OR = 2.296, 95%CI: 1.119–4.707), being uninsured (OR = 4.321, 95%CI: 1.750–10.672), being the partner or spouse of the care recipient (OR = 3.832, 95%CI: 1.546–9.493), and the number of hours of care (OR = 1.053, 95%CI: 1.021–1.085).
Conclusion
Higher levels of perceived social support and holidays were associated with lower levels of depression. However, being female, being the care recipient's partner or spouse, being uninsured, and having long care periods had detrimental effects. Interventions to preserve and enhance perceived social support could help improve depressive symptoms in informal caregivers. Additionally, support should be available to caregivers who are women, uninsured, and the care recipient's partner or spouse, as well as those who provide care for long hours, to ensure they have respite from their caregiving role.
Keywords: Chile, depression, developing countries, informal caregivers, social support
INTRODUCTION
Depressive symptoms are one of the most important causes of disability in the world and a leading contributor to the global burden of disease.1, 2 By 2050, nearly 80% of older persons in the world will live in emerging and developing economies,3 and as a result, the role played by informal caregivers will become increasingly relevant. However, informal caregiving has been extensively linked to depression for decades4 and it remains an important issue with regard to the burden of informal caregivers of older persons.5, 6
Although informal caregivers of older persons have been shown to have poorer mental health than non‐caregivers,7, 8 mental health remains largely ignored in Latin America. This neglect is especially distressing given that the burden of mental illness is a growing concern in the region,9 including in Chile,10 one of the oldest countries in Latin America.11 However, there is a fundamental lack of adequate and deep epidemiologic and country‐specific research on old age in Chile.12
Studies have shown that social support benefits informal caregivers by supporting coping and adjustment to this role and by improving their mental health5, 13, 14, 15; a lack of social support has been associated with poorer mental health among caregivers.16 Perceived social support also has the capability to diminish the detrimental effects of stress and improve health.17, 18, 19 However, most studies related to perceived social support were conducted outside Chile. To the best of our knowledge, only one Chilean study has addressed perceived social support and depression in caregivers, specifically caregivers of haemodialysis patients.20 In general (in Chile), studies on social support have been limited to caregivers of persons with schizophrenia and have used burden, not depressive symptoms, as an outcome measure.21, 22
The importance of this study stems from the reliance on family members to provide care in most developing countries, which usually lack national long‐term care programmes. In turn, these caregivers depend on their social networks for support. Currently, Chile lacks a state‐sponsored long‐term care system that offers state‐sponsored support services.23 Formal social support was previously reported to be little to non‐existent,24 and family remains the main source for social support amid ‘scant social investment in older persons…’ and the lack of a ‘…robust social protection system for old age’.25 This poses a great burden on untrained informal caregivers, who are decreasing in number. As a consequence of this burden, depression threatens the provision of informal care as a first‐line defence against institutionalization.26 Therefore, the authors aim to address the limited evidence regarding caregiver depression and social support in Chile.
Based on independent care recipient predictors of caregiver depression identified in the literature, we adjusted our model to include younger age, lower education, and dependence in completing activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).27 Likewise, based on independent caregiver predictors of depression in the literature, we adjusted our model to include being a partner or spouse and the number of hours of caregiving.7 Some have argued that the association between caregiving for older persons and depression relates to the lifestyle restrictions, such as personal life, social life, and employment, as well as increasingly difficult caregiving tasks.27 As such, we hypothesize that in the absence of a long‐term care system, there may be a beneficial relationship between perceived social support and depression in caregivers of older persons. Among main caregivers in Chile, this relationship has not been previously examined with nationally representative data from a nationwide survey.
METHODS
We conducted an analysis of the National Survey on the Dependency of Older Persons, a secondary nationwide survey in Chile created from a dual‐target (caregiver and older person) multistage probabilistic sample. The survey's sampling framework was taken from the last valid population and housing census in Chile, which occurred in 2002 and aimed to collect epidemiological data from persons aged 60 and over. Stratification was based on rural and urban settings (according to population size) and location (subjects from all regions were included). Units of analysis were, in descending order, cities, blocks, and houses. Houses were randomly selected. One person aged 60 and over was selected per house, but if there were multiple persons aged 80 and over, all were selected to account for the increased prevalence of dependency in older age groups. Details on the survey were published in a report by the National Agency for Elderly People of Chile.28
The original survey consisted of 4766 respondents aged 60 and over and their informal caregivers, if any. Ninety‐one percent of respondents completed the survey themselves, whereas the remaining 9% were surrogates for an older person with some degree of cognitive impairment as determined by the short version of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) (i.e. a score ≤12 points). The surrogates could not have cognitive impairment, and they required a Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire score ≥6 points to participate. The survey was administered by 126 adults, aged 18 and over, who had previous experience with complex surveys and preferably had some tertiary education. To minimize possible bias, the surveyors were trained on all the items of the survey and on using a personal digital assistant to enter the responses. The personal digital assistant provided real‐time validation of the entered data to avoid measurement errors. Data collection took place from November 2009 to January 2010.
Subjects
The sample for this study consisted of 377 dyads of older persons and their informal caregivers (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
Flow chart of older person and informal caregiver dyads. ADLs, activities of daily living; IADLs, instrumental activities of daily living.
For this study, older persons are those aged 60 and older who live in the community and acknowledge receiving assistance from a main caregiver. Main caregivers are those who identified themselves as main caregivers and were independently recognized by the older person as a provider of care related to ADL and/or IADL. This operational definition was set to avoid misclassification of the caregivers based on legal or economic definitions of the role of the main caregiver.
Measurements
Depressive symptoms, the outcome, were measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD). CESD is an extensively used tool for measuring the degree of depressive symptoms in the general population.29 This scale has been translated into Spanish and validated in Chile.30 An official report by the National Agency for Elderly People of Chile provided descriptive data on the caregivers in the analyzed data.28 However, this report included information from all self‐identified main caregivers, including those whom care recipients did not recognize as being involved in the provision of care related to ADL and/or IADL. The CESD's 20 items were rated on a 4‐point scale, with a range of 0 (experienced rarely or none of the time) to 3 (experienced most or all of the time). The total score range was 0–60 points, with 16 points or higher indicating some degree of depressive symptoms.
Caregivers’ perceived social support, the primary exposure of interest, was measured with the FSSQ .31 The 11 items were rated on a scale of 1 (much less than desired) to 5 (as much as desired), with total score ranging from 0 to 55. A score of 32 or higher indicates a high degree of perceived social support (coded as 1) according to the validated Spanish version of the questionnaire.32
Because of the subjective nature of perceived social support, we also asked binary questions regarding social support received by the caregiver in the bivariate analysis. The questions were ‘Have you taken holidays in the past 12 months?’, ‘Have you received training on care?’, and ‘Do you receive community support?’
Covariates
Covariates were collected to identify potential confounding factors for depression. They have been divided into three categories: (i) caregiver characteristics; (ii) caregiving characteristics; and (iii) care recipient characteristics. Caregiver characteristics included age, gender (female or male), years of education, marital status (married, divorced, widowed, or single), and health insurance status (insured or uninsured). Caregiving characteristics included setting (rural or urban), hours of care, relation with the care recipient (partner or spouse, child, or other), and their co‐residential status (yes or no). Care recipient characteristics included independence in ADL as measured by the Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living (Katz Index), independence in IADL as measured by the Lawton–Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (Lawton–Brody Scale), and cognitive impairment as measured by the short version of the MMSE.
The Katz Index's six items were rated dichotomously as 0 (with help) or 1 (without help). The total score range was 0–6, with higher scores indicating more independence in ADL.33 The Lawton–Brody Scale's items were rated on a 3‐point scale: 3 points (without help), 2 points (with help), and 1 point (cannot do it). The total score range was 0–24, with higher scores indicating more independence in IADL.34 The MMSE evaluated care recipients’ understanding of space–time location, short‐term memory, and concentration.35 The high score on the short version of the MMSE is 19 points, and a score <13 points is considered to indicate cognitive impairment.
Data analyses
To detect correlations, we used Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients; correlations with ρ ≥ 0.7 were considered strong. To examine the bivariate relationship between each explanatory variable and the primary outcome of depression, we used the χ2 test for categorical variables and the t‐test for continuous ones.
Explanatory variables entered into the final binary logistic regression analysis had a relationship strength in the bivariate analyses that was within 0.25 of significance. However, care recipient characteristics (Katz Index score (ADL), Lawton–Brody Scale score (IADL) and cognitive impairment) were forced into the model. Observations with missing data were excluded from the multivariable analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as statistically significant. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 22 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Written consent to analyze this secondary data was obtained from National Agency for Elderly People of Chile, who originally collected the data. As such, the agency was responsible for obtaining respondents’ consent and any ethical considerations, including review by an appropriate ethics committee.28
RESULTS
Caregivers in this sample had a mean age of 51.73 years. Most of them were women (85.1%), and they had an average of 8.22 years of education. The mean amount of care was 15.64 h. Nearly half of the caregivers (43.8%) were the children of care recipients, and around one‐fourth (23.3%) were the partners or spouses. An extensive summary of descriptive characteristics of caregivers is in Table 1.
Table 1.
Basic characteristics of the caregivers (N = 377)
| Item | |
|---|---|
| Caregiver characteristics | |
| Age (years) | |
| Mean | 51.7 |
| Median (range) | 50 (15–87) |
| Gender, n (%) | |
| Male (ref) | 56 (14.9) |
| Female | 321 (85.1) |
| Education (years) | |
| Mean | 8.2 |
| Median (range) | 8 (0–17) |
| Marital status, n (%) | |
| Married | 212 (56.2) |
| Divorced | 28 (7.4) |
| Widowed | 21 (5.6) |
| Single | 116 (30.8) |
| Health insurance, n (%) | |
| Uninsured | 32 (8.5) |
| National | 320 (84.9) |
| Private | 9 (2.4) |
| Other | 8 (2.1) |
| Caregiving characteristics | |
| Setting, n (%) | |
| Rural | 127 (33.7) |
| Urban | 250 (66.3) |
| Hours of care | |
| Mean | 15.6 |
| Median (range) | 14 (1–24) |
| Relation to the care recipient, n (%) | |
| Partner or spouse | 88 (23.3) |
| Child | 165 (43.8) |
| Stepchild | 4 (1.1) |
| Parent/parents‐in‐law | 2 (0.5) |
| Sibling/sibling‐in‐law | 16 (4.2) |
| Child‐in–law | 26 (6.9) |
| Grandchild | 27 (7.2) |
| Other relative | 25 (6.6) |
| Non‐relative | 18 (4.8) |
| Private care | 6 (1.6) |
| Co‐residence, n (%) | |
| No | 54 (14.3) |
| Yes | 320 (84.9) |
| Care recipient characteristics | |
| Katz Index score (ADL) | |
| Mean | 3.4 |
| Median (range) | 4 (0–5) |
| Lawton–Brody Scale score (IADL) | |
| Mean | 13.8 |
| Median (range) | 14 (2–24) |
| Cognitive impairment, n (%) | 179 (47.5) |
| Outcome: depression of caregiver (CESD score) | |
| Mean | 16.8 |
| Median (range) | 15 (0–50) |
| Exposure: perceived social support (FSSQ) | |
| Mean | 39.3 |
| Median (range) | 41 (11–55) |
| Received social support, n (%) | |
| Has taken a holidays in the past 12 months | 83 (22.0) |
| Has received care training | 28 (7.4) |
| Receives community support | 20 (5.3) |
ADL, activities of daily living; CESD, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; FSSQ, Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living.
Depressive symptoms were observed in nearly half of the caregivers (46.9%). More than three‐fourths (76.9%) perceived themselves as having a higher level of social support. Measures of received social support showed that nearly one‐fourth (22.0%) had taken holidays in the past 12 months. Few had received care training (7.4%) or community support (5.3%). Cronbach's α was 0.857 for CESD and 0.894 for the FSSQ. Details of the main outcome and exposure can be found in Table 2.
Table 2.
Main outcome and exposure (N = 377)
| Item | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Outcome: depression of caregiver (CESD) | |
| Not depressed (<16) | 200 (53.1) |
| Depressed (≥16) | 177 (46.9) |
| Exposure: perceived social support (FSSQ) | |
| Lower (<32) | 87 (23.1) |
| Higher (≥32) | 290 (76.9) |
CESD, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; FSSQ, Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire.
Bivariate analysis
Among those factors associated with being depressed in our bivariate analyses, we found that the perceived social support, having taken holidays in the past 12 months, the carer's age, the carer's gender, the carer's years of education, being insured, the number of hours of care, relation to the care recipient, co‐residence, Katz Index score, and Lawton–Brody Scale score were associated within a statistical significance of P < 0.25 (Table 3). This P‐value was used as the criterion for considering variables in the subsequent multivariable model. Cognitive impairment, despite not being statistically significant in the bivariate analysis, was included to adjust for care recipients’ characteristics.
Table 3.
Bivariate analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and depression
| Depression† | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Total n(%) | Not depressed n (%) | Depressed n (%) | P‐value |
| Caregiver characteristics | ||||
| Caregivers | 377 (100) | 200 (53.1) | 177 (46.9) | |
| Age | 51.7 ± 15.4 | 50.2 ± 15.7 | 53.5 ± 15 | 0.042 |
| Gender | 0.213 | |||
| Male | 56 (14.9) | 34 (17) | 22 (12.4) | |
| Female | 321 (85.1) | 166 (83) | 155 (87.6) | |
| Education (years) | 8.2 ± 4.2 | 8.3 ± 4.5 | 6.7 ± 4.2 | 0.000 |
| Marital status | 0.431 | |||
| Single | 116 (30.8) | 67 (33.5) | 49 (27.7) | |
| Married | 212 (56.2) | 105 (52.5) | 107 (60.5) | |
| Divorced | 28 (7.4) | 17 (8.5) | 11 (6.2) | |
| Widowed | 21 (5.6) | 11 (5.5) | 10 (5.6) | |
| Medical insurance | 0.003 | |||
| Yes | 337 (91.3) | 187 (95.4) | 150 (86.7) | |
| No | 32 (8.7) | 9 (4.6) | 23 (13.3) | |
| Caregiving characteristics | ||||
| Setting | 0.723 | |||
| Rural | 127 (33.7) | 69 (34.5) | 58 (32.8) | |
| Urban | 250 (66.3) | 131 (65.5) | 119 (67.2) | |
| Hours of care | 15.6 ± 8.3 | 13.6 ± 8.2 | 17.9 ± 7.8 | 0.000 |
| Relation to the care recipient | 0.000 | |||
| Partner or spouse | 88 (23.3) | 33 (16.5) | 55 (31.1) | |
| Child | 169 (44.8) | 87 (43.5) | 82 (46.3) | |
| Other | 120 (31.8) | 80 (40) | 40 (22.6) | |
| Co‐residence | 0.012 | |||
| No | 54 (14.4) | 37 (18.8) | 17 (9.6) | |
| Yes | 320 (85.6) | 160 (81.2) | 160 (90.4) | |
| Care recipient characteristics | ||||
| Katz Index score (ADL) | 3.4 ± 1.7 | 3.5 ± 1.6 | 3.25 ± 1.8 | 0.140 |
| Lawton–Brody Scale score (IADL) | 13.8 ± 4.9 | 14.1 ± 4.9 | 13.5 ± 4.9 | 0.160 |
| Cognitive impairment | 0.592 | |||
| No | 143 (44.4) | 74 (43) | 69 (46) | |
| Yes | 179 (55.6) | 98 (57) | 81 (54) | |
| Perceived social support (FSSQ) | 0.000 | |||
| Lower (<32) | 87 (23.1) | 30 (15) | 57 (32.2) | |
| Higher (≥32) | 290 (76.9) | 170 (85) | 120 (67.8) | |
| Received social support | ||||
| Has taken holidays in the past 12 months | 0.006 | |||
| No | 294 (78) | 145 (72.5) | 149 (84.2) | |
| Yes | 83 (22) | 55 (27.5) | 28 (15.8) | |
| Has received care training | 0.737 | |||
| No | 349 (92.6) | 186 (93) | 163 (92.1) | |
| Yes | 28 (7.4) | 14 (7) | 14 (7.9) | |
| Receives community support | 0.271 | |||
| No | 357 (94.7) | 187 (93.5) | 170 (96) | |
| Yes | 20 (5.3) | 13 (6.5) | 7 (4) | |
Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.
A Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale score ≥16 indicates depression.
ADL, activities of daily living; FSSQ, Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living.
Multivariable analysis
The final model for the dichotomous outcome of caregiver depression consisted of 11 explanatory elements (Table 4). No multicollinearity was detected among the predictors.
Table 4.
Logistic regression of social support and depression† (n = 315)
| Variables in the equation | Exp (B) | 95%CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Perceived social support (ref = lower social support) | ||||
| Higher social support | 0.311 | 0.167 | 0.579 | |
| Has taken holidays in the past 12 months | 0.513 | 0.270 | 0.975 | |
| Carer's age (years) | 0.982 | 0.959 | 1.005 | |
| Carer's gender (ref = male) | ||||
| Female | 2.381 | 1.136 | 4.988 | |
| Education (years) | 0.943 | 0.879 | 1.010 | |
| Health insurance type (ref = insured) | ||||
| Uninsured | 4.629 | 1.838 | 11.656 | |
| Relation to care recipient (ref = other) | ||||
| Partner or spouse | 3.832 | 1.546 | 9.493 | |
| Child | 1.387 | 0.762 | 2.523 | |
| Hours of care | 1.052 | 1.017 | 1.087 | |
| Co‐residence (ref = no) | 0.939 | 0.828 | 1.064 | |
| Katz Index score (ADL) | 0.966 | 0.902 | 1.034 | |
| Lawton–Brody Scale score (IADL) | 0.996 | 0.806 | 1.230 | |
| Cognitively impaired care recipient (ref = no) | ||||
| Yes | 0.765 | 0.431 | 1.357 | |
| Constant | 2.467 | |||
| Hosmer–Lemeshow test | ||||
| Step | χ2 | d.f. | P‐value | |
| 1 | 2.125 | 8 | 0.977 | |
A Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale score ≥16 indicates depression.
ADL, activities of daily living; CI, confidence interval; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living.
A higher level of perceived social support, as opposed to a lower one, decreased the likelihood of a caregiver being depressed (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.17–0.58). Also, beneficial was having taken holidays in the past 12 months (OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.27–0.98).
Detrimental factors that increased the likelihood to being depressed were being female (OR = 2.38, 95%CI 1.14–4.99), being uninsured (OR = 4.63, 95%CI 1.84–11.66), being the partner of the care recipient, as opposed to other (OR = 3.83, 95%CI 1.55–9.49), and each additional hour of care (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.02–1.09). With these additional hours, the average amount of care provided by Chilean caregivers was 16 h (OR = 2.25).16
DISCUSSION
The present study's main findings indicate that depressive symptoms are relatively prevalent among caregivers and that higher social support can help prevent depressive symptoms. A previous study of caregivers of patients attending haemodialysis in Chile reported that 43.8% had depression according to the CESD (95%CI: 36.42–51.53),20 which is similar to the 46.9% found in our study. In other countries where the CESD was used with the same cut‐off score of 16, the prevalence of depression seemed to be lower. In Japan, a study showed that the prevalence was 34.2% among informal caregivers of community‐dwelling elderly persons who used the long‐term care insurance system.36 In Canada, the prevalence was 21% among informal caregivers of demented elders in the community,37 despite dementia supposedly placing a higher strain on caregivers compared to caregivers of people without dementia. In Spain, a sample of caregivers of disabled older persons reports a prevalence of 36.9% for both sexes, although disability may pose a higher burden for caregivers compared to caregivers of people without disabilities.38 In the USA, among caregivers of impaired elderly the prevalence of depression was 35.2%.39 It can be argued that the prevalence of depression among caregivers in Chile is high, especially given the prevalence of depressive symptoms in the general population was estimated to be 17.2% based on nationally representative data for 2009–2010,40 for which depression was assessed with the Short Form of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview.41
The results of the present study show the importance of addressing caregivers’ depressive symptoms in a country where the increasing number of older persons require more informal caregivers for whom depression poses a serious burden.42 This also applies to other countries in the region and developing countries in general, where most older persons will live in the near future.3 In addition, this study highlights a neglected topic in the literature of the region: social support and depression of informal caregivers. Given the lack of long‐term care services and evidence‐based policies in developing countries when compared to developed countries, this subject is of the utmost importance.43
Our main exposure, perceived social support, appears to act as a preventive against the likelihood of having depressive symptoms. This beneficial effect has been documented before.5, 14, 18, 19 Previously, a study using the FSSQ found a correlation between depression among caregivers and lower social support.44 Although this was observed in our bivariate analyses, it was statistically insignificant in our multivariable analysis. It must be noted that there were fewer adjusting variables in this study. Additionally, as in this study, previous studies have found that compared to the effects of received social support, those of perceived social support relate more strongly to depressive symptoms.14, 19, 45 This may reflect the importance of the quality of the social support rather than the quantity or the perception of availability over actual reception.5, 14
With regard to the covariates in the present study, female caregivers were nearly 2.4 times more likely to be depressed than male caregivers. Previous studies have shown the detrimental effects of being a female caregiver and the partner of the care recipient.27, 46, 48 Livingston et al. explained that the higher prevalence of depression in female caregivers negates the idea that women adapt more ‘naturally’ to the role of caregiver. However, women generally have a higher likelihood of being depressed.19 This is consistent with nationally representative data on the general population in Chile, where the prevalence of depression in women is three times that in men (25.7% vs 8.5%).40 Therefore, this relationship may be the result of gender rather than differences among caregivers.
Spouse caregivers have been found to have a higher risk for depression.48 It has been argued that the closer the bond, the more stressful the caregiving role, which could explain this heightened risk. The proximity between dyads could also explain the beneficial effect of being a caregiver who is not the recipient's partner or spouse or even the recipient's child. In this study, partners and spouses were at a higher risk for depression than children and others (alternative analysis not included). This higher risk for spouses than for children has been found before.47 Partners and spouses experience the detrimental effects of proximity. Nonetheless, the present study found that co‐residence of the dyad was not statistically significant, as commonly found in the literature. This could be explained by the fact that the vast majority of dyads lived together (84.9%). This asymmetry may statistically hinder any significant finding.
The lack of a significant association between diminished physical capabilities and depression has been shown before. Livingston et al. argued that this may be due to the maintenance or reinforcement of the psychological benefits of a close relationship when the care recipient has diminished functional capabilities.46 In our study, functional capabilities are reflected in the Katz Index and Lawton–Brody Scale scores. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding caregiver depression and care recipients’ impairment. Others authors have found that greater functional impairment relates to higher levels of depression.27, 48 Meshefedjian et al. argued that increased physical burden may reduce the mental health of the caregivers. However, they suggest the possibility of bias because depressed caregivers may be more likely to report the disability of their care recipient.
The literature has previously reported that longer hours of care have a detrimental effect on caregivers.27 Longer hours of care may decrease caregivers’ physical and mental health because caregiving is a very physically and mentally demanding job. This may explain why having taken holidays appears to have had beneficial effect for caregivers in this study: holidays provided relief effects.
Among this study's strong points is the large, nationally representative data set, which in its original form included an expansion factor, enabling the figures to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation. In contrast, previous studies in Chile on caregiver experiences used limited samples. This study was also able to employ a wide set of relevant factors related to depression in caregivers, which have been previously documented in the literature. Another strength is the restricted definition of caregiver instead of self‐identification. Our definition allowed us to identify those caregivers who actually assist with ADL and IADL. Nonetheless, our definition could not identify caregivers who do not identify as such,49 which is a limitation of the original data collection.
The main limitation of this study was its cross‐sectional design, which precluded us from determining causality based on the associations. It prevented us from establishing if caregivers were depressed because of lower perceived social support or if perceived social support was lower because they were depressed. We tried to address this by including objective elements of received social support, which improved the fitness of the multivariable model while providing statistically significant findings.
Another limitation of this study was the absence of information regarding the economic resources of caregivers, care recipients, and households. It has been previously reported that economic health probably mitigates the stresses of caregiving.27 We argue that a closer surrogate to caregiver income could be their years of education, which was close to significant in this study. However, the fact that primary education in Chile is mandatory and free for those without resources may preclude this assumption. Another factor that may indicate caregiver wealth is having private health insurance, which is generally more expensive system for the provision of health services. However, in this study, only 2.4% of caregivers had private health insurance. A much larger proportion (84.9%) was enrolled in the national insurance system, which often serves poorer segments of the population. Their use of national insurance may be explained by their inability to have a paid job because of their caregiving duties, which therefore limits their access to more expensive insurance.
Based on our findings, we believe that the beneficial effects of social support should be further explored. In particular, future studies should consider the effects of activities involving social interactions, such as volunteer programmes and intergenerational programmes, as well as the provision of government‐sponsored long‐term care programmes to complement informal support,50 such as cash transfers, in‐kind benefits, and respite care for caregivers. Additionally, research should examine ways to alleviate caregiver burden, which is especially important given that nearly half of caregivers have depression. Although the level of perceived social support was high among survey respondents (76.9%), this could decrease as more people become primary informal caregivers. Also, the effects of the declining marriage rate should be considered, as it will result in more single elderly individuals. Likewise, the declining birth rates means that older persons will not have children to turn to for caregiving. This is all occurring in the context of changing household structure: multiple generations are increasingly less likely to share a household. Because children and partners or spouses account for most of the caregiving force, the social support for caregivers will be certainly reduced.
These demographic trends point to the necessity for a long‐term care system that will enable caregivers to have respite and alleviate caregiver burden. This is particularly important for female caregivers, who appear to most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of caregiving. In this study, taking holidays was shown to be beneficial for caregivers. Therefore, how respite affects caregivers should be further explored, as should respite care programmes that enable caregivers to take needed breaks. Policies that address providing support for depressed female caregivers should also be explored. Future studies should examine the spousal obligation to provide care, which this study found to have a detrimental effect on caregivers. Finally, measures to address depression among uninsured caregivers, particularly in a country with universal health care, should be explored.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the National Agency for Older Persons of Chile (SENAMA) for the provision of the data.
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
This research was supported by 1) a grant‐in‐aid from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan through a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant (Research on Policy Planning and Evaluation H28‐seisaku‐ippan‐003) and the Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (Challenges of global ageing without borders H24‐Chikyukibo‐ippan‐001); 2) The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (2013 Only‐One Dispatch Program by the University Research Strengthening Promotion Project); and 3) by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant‐in‐Aid for Fellows 2015 H27‐Tokubetsu‐Kenkyuin‐Shorei‐hi).
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 2013; 382: 1575–1586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ferrari AJ, Charlson FJ, Norman RE et al. Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. United Nations Population Fund, HelpAge International . Ageing in the twenty‐first century: a celebration and a challenge. New York; London: United Nations Population Fund, HelpAge International, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Gallagher D, Rose J, Rivera P, Lovett S, Thompson LW. Prevalence of depression in family caregivers. Gerontologist 1989; 29: 449–456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Savage S, Bailey S. The impact of caring on caregivers' mental health: a review of the literature. Aust Health Rev 2004; 27: 111–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Mello JA, Macq J, Van Durme T et al. The determinants of informal caregivers' burden in the care of frail older persons: a dynamic and role‐related perspective. Aging Ment Health 2017; 21: 838–843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta‐analysis. Psychol Aging 2003; 18: 250–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Cochrane JJ, Goering PN, Rogers JM. The mental health of informal caregivers in Ontario: an epidemiological survey. Am J Public Health 1997; 87: 2002–2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Fiestas F, Gallo C, Poletti G et al. Improving mental and neurological health research in Latin America: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Saldivia S, Vicente B, Kohn R, Rioseco P, Torres S. Use of mental health services in Chile. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55: 71–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Palloni A, Pinto‐Aguirre G, Peláez M. Demographic and health conditions of ageing in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 762–771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Gitlin LN, Fuentes P. The Republic of Chile: an upper middle‐income country at the crossroads of economic development and aging. Gerontologist 2012; 52: 297–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Rodakowski J, Skidmore ER, Rogers JC, Schulz R. Role of social support in predicting caregiver burden. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 2229–2236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Fiore J, Becker J, Coppel DB. Social network interactions: a buffer or a stress. Am J Community Psychol 1983; 11: 423–439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Fiore J, Coppel DB, Becker J, Cox GB. Social support as a multifaceted concept: examination of important dimensions for adjustment. Am J Community Psychol 1986; 14: 93–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Butterworth P, Pymont C, Rodgers B, Windsor TD, Anstey KJ. Factors that explain the poorer mental health of caregivers: results from a community survey of older Australians. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2010; 44: 616–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Lim JW, Zebrack B. Caring for family members with chronic physical illness: a critical review of caregiver literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Haley WE, LaMonde LA, Han B, Burton AM, Schonwetter R. Predictors of depression and life satisfaction among spousal caregivers in hospice: application of a stress process model. J Palliat Med 2003; 6: 215–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Thielemann PA, Conner NE. Social support as a mediator of depression in caregivers of patients with end‐stage disease. J Hosp Palliat Nurs 2009; 11: 82–90. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Arechabala MC, Catoni MI, Palma E, Barrios S. [Depression and self‐perceived burden of care by hemodialysis patients and their caregivers.] Rev Panam Salud Publica 2011; 30 (1): 74–79 (in Spanish). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Grandon P, Jenaro C, Lemos S. Primary caregivers of schizophrenia outpatients: burden and predictor variables. Psychiatry Res 2008; 158: 335–343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Caqueo‐Urizar A, Gutierrez‐Maldonado J, Miranda‐Castillo C. Quality of life in caregivers of patients with schizophrenia: a literature review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Sandoval Garrido FA, Tamiya N, Lloyd‐Sherlock P, Noguchi H. Relation of depression with health behaviors and social conditions of dependent community‐dwelling older persons in the republic of Chile. Int Psychogeriatr 2016; 28: 2029–2043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, CELADE. División de Población . Redes de Apoyo Social de Las Personas Mayores: Marco Conceptual. Notas de población N77. Santiago: Centro Latinoamericano de Demografía CELADE Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe CEPAL, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Gallardo‐Peralta LP, de Roda ABL, Angeles Molina‐Martinez M, Schettini Del Moral R. Family and community support among older Chilean adults: the importance of heterogeneous social support sources for quality of life. J Gerontol Soc Work 2018; 61: 584–604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Soldo BJ, Myllyluoma J. Caregivers who live with dependent elderly. Gerontologist 1983; 23: 605–611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Covinsky KE, Newcomer R, Fox P et al. Patient and caregiver characteristics associated with depression in caregivers of patients with dementia. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 1006–1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Gonzalez FMT, Lavanderos F, Albala C et al. In: Center M, ed. National Study of the Dependency in Older Persons, Chapter 3, 2009th edn. Santiago: Servicio Nacional del Adulto Mayor, 2009; 16–24. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Radloff LS. The CES‐D scale: a self‐report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measur 1977; 1: 385–401. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Gempp R, Thieme C. Efecto de diferentes métodos de puntuación sobre la fiabilidad, validez y puntos de corte de la escala de depresión del Centro para Estudios Epidemiológicos (CES‐D). Ter Psicol 2010; 28: 5–12. [Google Scholar]
- 31. Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, de Gruy FV, Kaplan BH. The Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care 1988; 26: 709–723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Bellon Saameno JA, Delgado Sanchez A, Luna del Castillo JD, Lardelli Claret P. [Validity and reliability of the Duke‐UNC‐11 questionnaire of functional social support.]. Aten Primaria 1996; 18: 153–156. 8–63 (Article in Spanish). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Lawton MP. The functional assessment of elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc 1971; 19: 465–481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘Mini‐mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Arai Y, Kumamoto K, Mizuno Y, Washio M. Depression among family caregivers of community‐dwelling older people who used services under the long term care insurance program: a large‐scale population‐based study in Japan. Aging Ment Health 2014; 18: 81–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gallicchio L, Siddiqi N, Langenberg P, Baumgarten M. Gender differences in burden and depression among informal caregivers of demented elders in the community. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002; 17: 154–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Zunzunegui MV, Beland F, Llacer A, Keller I. Family, religion, and depressive symptoms in caregivers of disabled elderly. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 364–369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Tennstedt S, Cafferata GL, Sullivan L. Depression among caregivers of impaired elders. J Aging Health 1992; 4: 58–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Ministerio de Salud, Chile . [Report of the national health survey 2009.] 2012. [Cited 1, Mar 2019.] Available from URL: https://www.minsal.cl/portal/url/item/bcb03d7bc28b64dfe040010165012d23.pdf (in Spanish).
- 41. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun B, Wittchen HU. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview ‐ Short Form (CIDI‐SF). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1998; 7: 171–185. [Google Scholar]
- 42. Chisholm D, Sweeny K, Sheehan P et al. Scaling‐up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 415–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Lloyd‐Sherlock P. Population ageing in developed and developing regions: implications for health policy. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 887–895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Moral Serrano MS, Juan Ortega J, López Matoses MJ, Pellicer Magraner P. [Profile and risk of mental illness in caregivers for home care patients]. Aten Primaria 2003; 32 (2): 77–83 (in Spanish). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Wethington E, Kessler RC. Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. J Health Soc Behav 1986; 27: 78–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Livingston G, Manela M, Katona C. Depression and other psychiatric morbidity in carers of elderly people living at home. BMJ 1996; 312: 153–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Baumgarten M, Battista RN, Infante‐Rivard C, Hanley JA, Becker R, Gauthier S. The psychological and physical health of family members caring for an elderly person with dementia. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 61–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Meshefedjian G, McCusker J, Bellavance F, Baumgarten M. Factors associated with symptoms of depression among informal caregivers of demented elders in the community. Gerontologist 1998; 38: 247–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Robison J, Fortinsky R, Kleppinger A, Shugrue N, Porter M. A broader view of family caregiving: effects of caregiving and caregiver conditions on depressive symptoms, health, work, and social isolation. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2009; 64: 788–798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Haupfleisch R. Age Friendly Goods and Services ‐ An Opportunity for Social and Economic Development. synthesis report. Poland: European Commission, Directorate‐General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. 2014. [Google Scholar]