| Literature DB >> 28579934 |
Heidi Gautun1, Christopher Bratt2.
Abstract
The need to provide care for older people can put a strain on their adult children, potentially interfering with their work attendance. We tested the hypothesis that public care for older people (nursing homes or home care services) would moderate the association between having an older parent in need of care and reduced work attendance among the adult children. The analysis used data from a survey of Norwegian employees aged 45-65 (N = 529). Institutional care for older people in need of care (i.e. nursing homes) was associated with improved work attendance among their children-their daughters in particular. Data also indicated a moderating effect: the link between the parents' reduced health and reduced work attendance among the children was weaker if the parent lived in a nursing home. However, the results were very different for home-based care: data indicated no positive effects on adult children's work attendance when parents received non-institutionalised care of this kind. Overall, the results suggest that extending public care service to older people can improve their children's ability to combine work with care for parents. However, this effect seems to require the high level of care commonly provided by nursing homes. Thus, the current trend towards de-institutionalising care in Europe (and Norway in particular) might hamper work attendance among care-giving adult children, women in particular. Home care services to older people probably need to be extended if they are intended as a real alternative to institutional care.Entities:
Keywords: Care for ageing parents; Home care services; Labour market participation; Nursing homes
Year: 2016 PMID: 28579934 PMCID: PMC5435790 DOI: 10.1007/s10433-016-0403-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Ageing ISSN: 1613-9372
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
| M | S.D. | Min | Max | Correlations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||||
| 1 | Days taken off | 0.53 | 1.47 | 0 | 7 | 1.00 | |||||
| 2 | Irregular work attendance | 0.53 | 1.05 | 0 | 6 | 0.35* | 1.00 | ||||
| 3 | Working hours reduced | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 | 0.36* | 0.22* | 1.00 | |||
| 4 | ADL | 1.49 | 3.11 | 0 | 12 | 0.10* | 0.24* | 0.03 | 1.00 | ||
| 5 | IADL | 4.24 | 3.28 | 0 | 10 | 0.16* | 0.34* | 0.12* | 0.64* | 1.00 | |
| Prct. | |||||||||||
| 6 | Nursing home | 12.9 | na | 0 | 1 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.04 | 0.46* | 0.33* | 1.00 |
| 7 | Home-based service | 40.2 | na | 0 | 1 | 0.16* | 0.22* | 0.10* | 0.41* | 0.59* | 0.06 |
The table uses spearman correlations (with Bonferroni-adjusted significance level) because nursing home and home-based service were dichotomous variables, and also because other variables were skewed. Days taken off is the number of days taken off due to assisting a parent (with 8 answers indicating 6 to 10 days recoded as 6, and 6 answers indicating 11 to 52 days recoded as 7). Irregular work attendance refers to irregular attendance at work-related meetings or courses due to assisting a parent. Working hours reduced is a dichotomous variable combining several indicators. ADL is an index of the parent’s ability to perform ‘activities of daily living’, IADL is an index of the parent’s ability to perform ‘instrumental activities of daily living’, see the Methods section for details. Nursing home refers to the parent living in a nursing home (1 = yes), home-based service refers to the parent receiving home-based care services
* p < 0.05
Absence from work dependent on parents’ ability to perform activities of daily life (ADL) and public services provided to the parent
| Model 1 | Model 2a | Model 2b | Model 3a | Model 3b | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor analysis of | |||||
| Absence from work | |||||
| Days taken off | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f |
| Irregular work attendance | 0.644*** | 0.826*** | 0.881*** | 0.746*** | 0.712*** |
| Working hours reduced | 0.564*** | 0.655*** | 0.644*** | 0.595*** | 0.582*** |
| Predictors | |||||
| ADL | 0.029 | 0.066** | 0.125*** | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Nursing home | −0.529** | 0.135 | |||
| Home-based service | 0.494*** | 0.501*** | |||
| Interaction effect | −0.153** | −0.018 | |||
| R2 Absence from work | .010 | .030 | .070 | .096 | .095 |
| Model fit | |||||
| Chi-square | 1.088 | 6.900 | 6.487 | 3.456 | 3.566 |
| | 2 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| | 0.581 | 0.141 | 0.371 | 0.485 | 0.735 |
| RMSEA | 0.000 | 0.039 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CFI | 1.000 | 0.971 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Coefficients shown for the factor analysis of absence from work are (unstandardized) factor loadings. df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, SRMR standardised root mean square residual. N = 475 (N = 466 for home-based services). f means fixed prior to estimation. Separate analyses using multiple imputation to increase sample size provided very similar results
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; two-tailed significance tests
Absence from work dependent on parents’ ability to perform instrumental activities of daily life (IADL) and public services provided to the parent
| Model 1 | Model 2a | Model 3a | Model 3b | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor analysis of | ||||
| Absence from work | ||||
| Days taken off | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f |
| Irregular work attendance | 0.937*** | 0.939*** | 0.961*** | 0.825*** |
| Working hours reduced | 0.670*** | 0.686*** | 0.636*** | 0.599*** |
| Predictors | ||||
| IADL | 0.099*** | 0.110*** | 0.098*** | 0.108*** |
| Nursing home | −0.374* | |||
| Home-based service | 0.103 | 0.137 | ||
| Interaction effect | −0.006 | |||
| R2 Absence from work | .171 | .186 | .191 | .195 |
| Model fit | ||||
| Chi-square | 6.661 | 6.625 | 7.949 | 6.186 |
| | 2 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| | 0.036 | 0.157 | 0.094 | 0.403 |
| RMSEA | 0.072 | 0.038 | 0.047 | 0.008 |
| CFI | 0.965 | 0.980 | 0.966 | 0.998 |
Coefficients shown for the factor analysis of absence from work are (unstandardized) factor loadings. df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, SRMR standardised root mean square residual. N = 454 (N = 452 for home-based services). Model 1 had moderate fit, with a significant Chi-square and RMSEA = 0.07. f means fixed prior to estimation. Model 2b (testing moderation effect by nursing home) did not converge with maximum likelihood estimation. See the main text for results obtained with Bayesian estimation. Separate analyses using multiple imputation to increase sample size provided very similar results
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ^ p < 0.10; two-tailed significance tests
Gender differences in effects of ADL/IADL and nursing home
| ADL | IADL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | |
| Predictors | ||||
| ADL/IADL | 0.077* | 0.059^ | 0.150*** | 0.084** |
| Nursing home | −0.710* | −0.189 | −0.864** | −0.001 |
| Factor analysis of | ||||
| Absence from work | ||||
| Days taken off | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f | 1.000f |
| Irregular work attendance | 0.810*** | 0.810*** | 0.821*** | 0.821*** |
| Working hours reduced | 0.719*** | 0.719*** | 0.662*** | 0.662*** |
| Predictors | ||||
| ADL/IADL | 0.077* | 0.059^ | 0.150*** | 0.084** |
| Nursing home | −0.710* | −0.189 | −0.864** | −0.001 |
| Intercepts | ||||
| Days off | 0.435 | 1.227 | −0.032 | 0.252 |
| Irregular attendance | 0.408** | 1.093 | −0.019 | −0.008 |
| Absence | 0.000f | −0.622 | 0.000f | 0.259 |
| Residual variances | ||||
| Days off | 1.133*** | 1.870*** | 1.116*** | 1.962*** |
| Irregular attendance | 0.476*** | 0.803*** | 0.455*** | 0.895*** |
| Absence | 0.605*** | 0.623** | 0.559*** | 0.560** |
| Model fit | ||||
| Chi-square total | 12.684 | 9.649 | ||
| Chi-square group-specific | 11.497 | 1.187 | 3.020 | 6.629 |
| | 9 | 9 | ||
| | 0.177 | 0.380 | ||
| RMSEA | 0.042 | 0.018 | ||
| CFI | 0.971 | 0.996 | ||
df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, SRMR standardised root mean square residual. N = 475 (N = 466 for home-based services). Metric invariance, that is, invariant factor loadings across gender, was supported (p = 0.24), supporting a group-based analysis fixing factor loadings to be equal across the genders. Estimations fixed the threshold for the dichotomous indicator work reduction to be invariant across groups. f means fixed prior to estimation. Coefficients shown for the factor analysis of absence from work are (unstandardized) factor loadings
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ^ p < 0.10; two-tailed significance tests