Impacts of care‐giving and sources of support: a comparison of end‐of‐life and non‐end‐of‐life caregivers in Canada

This is the second in a series of papers that deal with care‐giving in Canada, as based on data available from the Canadian General Social Survey (2007). Building on the first paper, which reviewed the differences between short‐term, long‐term and end‐of‐life (EOL) caregivers, this paper uniquely examines the caregiver supports employed by EOL caregivers when compared to non‐EOL caregivers (short‐term and long‐term caregivers combined). Both papers employ data from Statistics Canada's General Social Survey (GSS Cycle 21: 2007). The GSS includes three modules, where respondents were asked questions about the unpaid home care assistance that they had provided in the last 12 months to someone at EOL or with either a long‐term health condition or a physical limitation. The objective of this research paper was to investigate the link between the impact of the care‐giving experience and the caregiver supports received, while also examining the differences in these across EOL and non‐EOL caregivers. By way of factor analysis and regression modelling, we examine differences between two types of caregivers: (i) EOL and (ii) non‐EOL caregivers. The study revealed that with respect to socio‐demographic characteristics, health outcomes and caregiver supports, EOL caregivers were consistently worse off. This suggests that although all non‐EOL caregivers are experiencing negative impacts from their care‐giving role, comparatively greater supports are needed for EOL caregivers.     

Combining informal care and paid work: The use of work arrangements by working adult‐child caregivers in the Netherlands

An increasing number of people combine paid work with the provision of informal care for a loved one. This combination of work and care may cause difficulties, necessitating adaptations at work, i.e. work arrangements. The present study explores what types of work arrangements are used by working caregivers, and which caregiver, care and work characteristics are associated with the use of these work arrangements. Within the Lifelines Informal Care Add‐on Study (Lifelines ICAS), data on 965 Dutch informal caregivers in the North of the Netherlands were collected between May 2013 and July 2014 (response rate 48%), and data on 333 working adult‐child caregivers (aged 26–68 years, 82% female) were used in this study. A small majority (56%) of the working caregivers used one or more work arrangement(s): taking time off (41%), individual agreements with supervisor (30%), formal care leave arrangement (13%), and reduction in paid work hours (6%). Logistic regression analyses showed that long working hours (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.08), and the experience of more health problems (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.56–4.05) or a disrupted schedule due to caregiving (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.66–3.78) increased the chance to have used one or more work arrangements. Lower educated working caregivers were less likely to have used a formal care leave arrangement (tertiary vs. primary education OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.13–6.67; tertiary vs. secondary education OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.27–5.09). Policy makers should inform working caregivers about the availability of the different work arrangements, with specific attention for low educated working caregivers. Employers need to consider a more caregiver‐friendly policy, as almost half of the working adult‐child caregivers did not use any work arrangement.