Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 14;37(1):10.1002/gps.5621. doi: 10.1002/gps.5621

TABLE 1.

Univariate and multivariate ordinal regression analysis on caregiving stress

Univariate regression result Multivariate regression result
OR (95% CI) p OR (95% CI) p
Age
CG 1.05 (1.02–1.08) <0.001 a 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 0.036*
CR 1.01 (0.97–1.04) 0.701
Gender
CG (male) 0.76 (0.35–1.68) 0.501
CR (male) 1.57 (0.84–2.93) 0.161
CG relationship with CR (reference: others)
Spouse 1.34 (0.26–6.94) 0.724
Child/Child‐in‐law 0.33 (0.07–1.59) 0.167
CG worked at home during pandemic 1.24 (0.51–3.00) 0.630
CG spent more time with CR during pandemic 3.76 (1.93–7.32) <0.001 a 4.02 (1.67–9.66) 0.002*
CR went out more during pandemic 2.07 (0.44–9.78) 0.360
Observed CR deterioration
Cognition (worse) 5.33 (2.63–10.82) <0.001 a 2.19 (0.90–5.34) 0.084
Mobility (worse) 3.22 (1.64–6.32) 0.001 a 1.12 (0.47–2.64) 0.799
Physical health (worse) 3.99 (2.07–7.69) <0.001 1.60 (0.70–3.68) 0.264
Emotion (worse) 7.45 (3.70–15.01) <0.001 5.61 (2.48–12.67) <0.001*
Communication (worse) 4.44 (2.31–8.50) <0.001 a 2.33 (1.01–5.41) 0.048*
Transportation (worse) 0.96 (0.43–2.13) 0.919
Shopping (worse) 0.95 (0.35–2.55) 0.911
CR living status during pandemic
Lived with CG 1.44 (0.75–2.75) 0.268
Lived with spouse 1.43 (0.78–2.61) 0.246
Lived with child/child‐in‐laws 0.43 (0.22−0.81) 0.009 a 0.24 (0.10−0.54) 0.001*
Lived with other relatives 0.57 (0.26–1.23) 0.151
Lived with maid 0.54 (0.29–1.00) 0.052 a 0.58 (0.28–1.21) 0.146
Lived alone 0.15 (0.01–1.52) 0.108
Observed CR dementia stage (reference: late)
Early 0.95 (0.33–2.72) 0.920
Moderate 0.89 (0.39–2.01) 0.775

Abbreviations: CG, Participant; CI, Confidence level; CR, Care recipient; OR, Odds ratio.

a

Variables with p < 0.1 in univariate regression were included in the multivariate regression: participant age; time spent with care recipient during the pandemic; observed care recipient deterioration of cognitive functioning, mobility, physical health, emotion, and communication; and whether the care recipient lived with child and maid; these variables also had good univariate model fit (test of parallel lines p > 0.05). The final model met the proportional odds assumption (χ 2 = 9.379, df = 18, p = 0.950).

*p < 0.05.