Varshini Varadaraj1, Kayla S Swiatek2, Shang-En Chung3, Joshua R Ehrlich4, Lama Assi5, Jennifer L Wolff6, Bonnielin K Swenor7. 1. From the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 3. Johns Hopkins University Center on Aging and Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Center for Eye Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. From the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Lipitz Center for Integrated Health Care and Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. From the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins University Center on Aging and Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: bswenor@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine caregiving relationships for older adults with vision impairment (VI). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Setting: the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to the National Study of Caregiving, Year 2011. STUDY POPULATION: 1,776 family or unpaid caregivers to community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years old. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: in the preceding month, 1) the number of hours of care provided; 2) the valued activities affected by caregiving; and 3) the odds of experiencing substantial emotional, financial, and physical difficulty related to providing care. EXPOSURE: VI was defined as a report of blindness or difficulty with distance or near vision. RESULTS: Among 1,776 caregivers, 428 caregivers spent an average ± standard error (SE) of 111 ± 9.1 hours per month assisting older adults with VI, whereas 1,348 spent an average of 72 ± 3.3 hours assisting older adults without VI. In fully adjusted negative binomial regression analyses, caregivers of older adults with VI spent 36% more hours (incident rate ratio [IRR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.60) providing care and reported having 61% more valued activities affected (IRR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.23-2.10) than caregivers of older adults without VI. In fully adjusted logistic regression analyses, caregivers of older adults with VI had greater odds of emotional (odds ratio [OR]: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.04-2.03) but not financial (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.87-2.03) or physical (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.74-1.74) difficulty related to providing care than caregivers of older adults without VI. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that caring for older adults with VI places different demands on time and emotional wellbeing than caring for older adults without VI, but no differences in financial or physical difficulties.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine caregiving relationships for older adults with vision impairment (VI). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Setting: the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to the National Study of Caregiving, Year 2011. STUDY POPULATION: 1,776 family or unpaid caregivers to community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years old. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: in the preceding month, 1) the number of hours of care provided; 2) the valued activities affected by caregiving; and 3) the odds of experiencing substantial emotional, financial, and physical difficulty related to providing care. EXPOSURE: VI was defined as a report of blindness or difficulty with distance or near vision. RESULTS: Among 1,776 caregivers, 428 caregivers spent an average ± standard error (SE) of 111 ± 9.1 hours per month assisting older adults with VI, whereas 1,348 spent an average of 72 ± 3.3 hours assisting older adults without VI. In fully adjusted negative binomial regression analyses, caregivers of older adults with VI spent 36% more hours (incident rate ratio [IRR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.60) providing care and reported having 61% more valued activities affected (IRR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.23-2.10) than caregivers of older adults without VI. In fully adjusted logistic regression analyses, caregivers of older adults with VI had greater odds of emotional (odds ratio [OR]: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.04-2.03) but not financial (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.87-2.03) or physical (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.74-1.74) difficulty related to providing care than caregivers of older adults without VI. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that caring for older adults with VI places different demands on time and emotional wellbeing than caring for older adults without VI, but no differences in financial or physical difficulties.
Authors: Varshini Varadaraj; Kevin D Frick; Jinan B Saaddine; David S Friedman; Bonnielin K Swenor Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: S K West; B Munoz; G S Rubin; O D Schein; K Bandeen-Roche; S Zeger; S German; L P Fried Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jennifer K Bambara; Cynthia Owsley; Virginia Wadley; Roy Martin; Chebon Porter; Laura E Dreer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 4.799