| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
a Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
b Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
c Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
d Economic Modeling Core, Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
e Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
f Consortium for Health Outcomes, Innovation, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies (CHOICES), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
g Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Kenneth M. Langa, Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, 300 North Ingalls Building, Room 7E01, Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429 E-mail: klanga{at}umich.edu.
Decision Editor: Fredric D. Wolinsky, PhD
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract Prior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods. We estimated multivariable regression models using data from the 1993 Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old Study, a nationally representative survey of people aged 70 or older (N = 7,443), to determine the weekly hours of informal caregiving and imputed cost of caregiver time for community-dwelling elderly individuals with and without a diagnosis of DM.
Results. Those without DM received an average of 6.1 hr per week of informal care, those with DM taking no medications received 10.5 hr, those with DM taking oral medications received 10.1 hr, and those with DM taking insulin received 14.4 hr of care (p < .01). Disabilities related to heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment were important predictors of diabetes-related informal care. The total cost of informal caregiving for elderly individuals with diabetes in the United States was between $3 and $6 billion per year, similar to previous estimates of the annual paid long-term care costs attributable to DM.
Discussion. Diabetes imposes a substantial burden on elderly individuals, their families, and society, both through increased rates of disability and the significant time that informal caregivers must spend helping address the associated functional limitations. Future evaluations of the costs of diabetes, and the cost-effectiveness of diabetes interventions, should consider the significant informal caregiving costs associated with the disease.
DIABETES mellitus (DM) is a common chronic disease diagnosed in about 10 million people in the United States, including more than 12% of the elderly population age 65 or older (Harris et al. 1998
). In addition, a significant number of Americans, perhaps as many as 5 million, are believed to have undiagnosed diabetes (Harris et al. 1998). The direct medical costs associated with treating diabetes and its complications (including heart disease, stroke, visual impairment, hypertension, kidney disease, and amputations) are estimated at about $44 billion per year (in 1997 dollars; American Diabetes Association 1998). The "indirect costs" of diabetes, those associated with lost productivity due to morbidity and premature mortality, have been estimated at an additional $54 billion per year (American Diabetes Association 1998).
Another cost associated with diabetes, the quantity of time spent by unpaid (informal) caregivers providing daily assistance with diabetes care (e.g., helping with diet, medications, and checking blood glucose), as well as care for diabetes-related complications (e.g., limitations in mobility due to heart failure, stroke, and lower extremity amputations), have not been previously evaluated. One study (Silliman, Bhatti, Khan, Dukes, and Sullivan 1996) found that family members frequently helped with daily diabetes care, as well as with instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs; e.g., shopping, cleaning, and cooking), but the total amount of time provided by caregivers was not evaluated.
Identifying and accounting for this previously undocumented component of diabetes care is especially important now, because the number of elderly individuals with diabetes in the United States will likely increase significantly over the next few decades due to the aging of the baby boom generation, increasing rates of obesity (Mokdad et al. 2000), and an increase in minority populations that exhibit higher rates of DM (Harris, Eastman, Cowie, Flegal, and Eberhardt 1999).
Our study had three related objectives. The first was to determine the rates of disability among elderly individuals with diabetes in the United States. The second was to obtain generalizable estimates of the total time that family members spend providing help to address these disabilities. The third objective was to assess the relative proportion of additional caregiving for those with DM that was related to important diabetic complications (e.g., heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment) and to diabetic treatment (e.g., increased number and complexity of medications). By determining a nationally representative estimate of informal caregiver time for diabetes, we hope to provide useful data for determining the full societal impact of the increasing number of elderly individuals with diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at decreasing the incidence of diabetes and its complications. A better understanding of how diabetes and its complications lead to significant burden on caregivers may aid in targeting potential interventions to assist the families of elderly individuals with diabetes.
|
Prior Research on Informal Caregiving |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
), a significant literature exists regarding the economic (Ernst and Hay 1997; Langa et al. 2001a; Moore, Zhu, and Clipp 2001) and health (Ory, Lee, Tennstedt, and Schulz 2000; Schulz, O'Brien, and Fleissner 1995) effects of informal caregiving for dementia. Most studies have found that the cost associated with unpaid informal caregiver time accounts for a majority of the total cost of dementia (Ernst and Hay 1997). However, the estimates of the average caregiver time, and associated cost, for dementia care have varied widely (from $1,500 [Weinberger et al. 1993] to $35,000 [Rice et al., 1993] per year), likely due to the use of small geographically restricted samples, as well as differences across studies in the methods for establishing a dementia diagnosis and the "wage" or "opportunity cost" used to value informal caregiver time (Ernst and Hay 1994; Hu, Huang, and Cartwright 1986; Hux et al. 1998; Langa et al. 2001a; Leon, Cheng, and Neumann 1998; Manton, Corder, and Clark 1993; Max, Webber, and Fox 1995; Moore et al. 2001; Ostbye and Crosse 1994; Rice et al. 1993; Stommel, Collins, and Given 1994; Weinberger et al. 1993).
The negative health effects that have been shown associated with dementia caregiving include increased rates of depression and anxiety (Ory et al. 2000; Schulz et al. 1995, Schulz et al. 1997) and poorer self-rated health status (Ory et al. 2000; Schulz et al. 1997). These negative health effects may be due, in part, to poorer health behaviors (less physical activity, sleep, and rest) among dementia caregivers (Burton, Newsom, Schulz, Hirsch, and German 1997; Ory et al. 2000; Schulz et al. 1997). A recent study showed that individuals who reported "strain" associated with their caregiving had significantly higher rates of mortality over four years of follow-up (Schulz and Beach 1999).
|
Conceptual Model of Informal Caregiving for Diabetes |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Haffner 1999), stroke (Folsom et al. 1999; Stegmayr and Asplund 1995), visual impairment (National Institutes of Health 1995), cognitive impairment (Gregg et al. 2000; Leibson et al. 1997), lower extremity amputations (Humphrey et al. 1994), kidney disease (National Institutes of Health 1995), and urinary incontinence (Nakayama, Jorgensen, Pedersen, and Raaschou 1997). As the number of medications and the complexity of the medical regimen required to treat diabetes and its complications increase, so too will informal caregiving for medication-related help. Diabetes-specific informal care (as opposed to that provided for help with ADLs and IADLs) will include activities such as help with glucose monitoring, foot care, and adherence to a diabetic diet (Silliman et al. 1996). Help with increased transportation needs, such as to physician visits and dialysis centers, will also result in additional time spent by informal caregivers.
|
Other potential predictors of informal care include sociodemographic characteristics of the patient and family (e.g., age, race, gender, education, and net worth), the availability of informal care (e.g., whether the elderly person is married, unmarried and living with others, or unmarried and living alone), and health system characteristics (e.g., the availability of possible substitutes for informal care, such as paid home care or nursing home services; Katz, Kabeto, and Langa 2000; Kemper 1992; Stone, Cafferata, and Sangl 1987; Wolf, Freedman, and Soldo 1997).
Properly identifying and attributing the caregiving costs that arise from a particular disease may be difficult when, as in the case of diabetes, the disease is a risk factor for other chronic conditions (American Diabetes Association 1998; Gold, Siegel, Russell, and Weinstein 1996; Kirschstein 2000). Because individuals with diabetes are at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment, for example, some of the costs that arise from these complications should be attributed to diabetes. However, heart disease and stroke would likely occur in some of these individuals even if diabetes were not present; so, it would be incorrect to attribute all costs associated with heart disease to diabetes. Another complexity in proper attribution of costs arises because the presence of diabetes might result in increased severity (and costs) for other diseases even if it is not a direct cause for the condition (e.g., impaired wound healing related to diabetes may complicate recovery from any surgical procedure). Given this inherent uncertainty regarding proper attribution of costs, we determined an upper and lower bound estimate for diabetes-related caregiving using both unadjusted and adjusted caregiving hours as described.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
). Our analysis included all 7,443 community-dwelling elderly individuals age 70 or older who were enrolled in the baseline survey. This sample is representative of the approximately 21 million community-dwelling elderly individuals in the United States.
The AHEAD survey was designed to study health transitions in old age and their impact on individuals, families, and society. In addition to measures of the health and functional status of the elderly survey respondents, data are collected on the number of hours of care provided by both paid and unpaid caregivers in the home. Most respondents aged 70–79 (74%) were interviewed by telephone, whereas most of those aged 80 and older (69%) were interviewed in person. The overall survey response rate was 80%, and response rate did not differ significantly for those interviewed by phone, compared with those interviewed in person (Soldo et al. 1997).
Approximately 10% of respondents were unable or unwilling to complete the AHEAD survey by themselves (Soldo et al. 1997). A proxy respondent, most often a spouse (45%) or daughter (29%), completed the survey for these individuals.
Dependent Variables
A respondent was considered to have a disability in an ADL if they reported having difficulty with or receiving help for that ADL. Disability in an IADL was defined as having difficulty performing the IADL without help, or not doing an IADL because of a health problem (Norgard and Rodgers 1997). We classified respondents as receiving informal care if in-home assistance with any ADL or IADL was provided by a relative (paid or not) or unpaid nonrelative with no organizational affiliation (Norgard and Rodgers 1997). AHEAD respondents were identified as recipients of informal care if, because of a health problem, they received any help with IADLs. However, because of the survey design, we were able to identify only those respondents who received help with an ADL "most of the time." So, less frequent help for ADLs (that provided "some of the time" or "occasionally") could not be included in the analysis.
The intensity (number of weekly hours) of informal home care was calculated using the average number of days per week (in the prior month) and average number of hours per day that respondents reported receiving help from informal caregivers. The methodology used for calculating weekly hours of care from the AHEAD data has been previously described (Langa, Chernew, Kabeto, and Katz 2001b; Wolf et al. 1997). Because data on hours per day of care were not collected for caregivers who helped less than once per week, we imputed weekly hours of care for these infrequent helpers using a regression model based on reported caregiver characteristics (helper sex, residential status, relationship to the respondent, and number of days per week of care; Wolf et al. 1997). Missing caregiving hours data were imputed for a total of 19% of informal caregivers. Because most caregivers with missing data were those who provided very infrequent help (less than once per week), they accounted for less than 2% of the total informal caregiver hours analyzed in the study. We reran all analyses after dropping any observation for which data were imputed and found no significant change in our results. We imposed a limit of 16 hr of care per day for any individual caregiver to allow for 8 hr of sleep (Ernst and Hay 1994; Penrod, Kane, Finch, and Kane 1998). This truncation of caregiving hours affected about 6% of the 2,700 informal caregivers identified in the AHEAD survey.
Classification of DM Status
All respondents were asked: "Do you have diabetes?" If a respondent answered "yes," he/she was then asked the following two questions regarding present treatment for DM:
The responses to these three questions were used to sort respondents into four mutually exclusive categories: (1) no DM; (2) DM, taking no medications (to treat DM); (3) DM, taking oral medication only; and (4) DM, taking insulin. We hypothesized that these four categories represent, on average, respondents with increasingly severe diabetes (both in terms of average level of hyperglycemia and duration since diagnosis; Hayward, Manning, Kaplan, Wagner, and Greenfield 1997) and, therefore, we expected complications (heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment), number of ADL and IADL impairments, and hours of informal caregiving to increase monotonically from Category 1 to Category 4.
Data needed to assign DM status were missing for five respondents who, therefore, were excluded from the analysis.
Independent Variables
The sociodemographic measures included in the analysis as independent variables were: age (70–79, 80–89, 
90), race (White, Black, other), sex, living situation (unmarried living alone, unmarried living with others, married), net worth (terciles), and years of education (<12, 12, 13). The self-reported chronic medical conditions included were: heart disease, stroke, visual impairment (corrected eyesight reported as "poor"), urinary incontinence, lung disease, cancer, psychiatric problem, and arthritis. Cognitive impairment consistent with dementia was defined based on poor performance on a cognitive screening test for self-respondents (Brandt, Spencer, and Folstein 1988; Langa et al. 2001a) or "fair or poor memory" as assessed by a proxy respondent. Number of prescription medications (0, 1–2, 3) was also included as an independent variable, because we expected medication-related help to increase with the number of medications.
To determine upper and lower bounds of the additional informal caregiving attributable to DM, we estimated six different regression models that varied in the set of included independent variables. Model 1 included diabetes category as the only independent variable, so all variation in caregiving hours is effectively attributed to diabetes, thereby yielding an upper-bound estimate. To Model 1, we sequentially added independent variables that might account for some of the variation in caregiving hours across DM categories. As independent variables are added sequentially to the regression model, their impact on caregiving hours is no longer attributed to DM; so, the final model represents a lower-bound estimate of caregiving for diabetes, because none of the informal caregiving associated with important diabetic complications is attributed to the presence of diabetes. Independent variables were added to the regression model in the following order: Model 2—sociodemographic measures and comorbidities expected to be "unrelated" to diabetes (lung disease, cancer, psychiatric problem, and arthritis); Model 3—heart disease and stroke ("macrovascular" complications of diabetes); Model 4—visual impairment (a "microvascular" complication of diabetes); Model 5—dementia and incontinence (conditions associated with diabetes, but causality is unclear); and Model 6—number of medications (a measure of treatment complexity).
Analytic Framework
Because a substantial proportion of respondents received no informal care in the month before administration of the survey, and the distribution of hours among recipients was highly skewed, we analyzed caregiving using a two-part multivariable model (Duan, Manning, Morris, and Newhouse 1983; Kemper 1992). To determine the likelihood of receiving informal care, we first used logistic regression to estimate the association of DM with receipt of any informal care the previous month, controlling for the other covariates included in the model. In the second part, we used ordinary least-squares regression to examine the association of DM with the natural logarithm of informal care hours per week for persons who received any care. The results from each part of the model were then combined to obtain an estimate of the average effect of DM on weekly hours of informal caregiving (Duan et al. 1983; Kemper 1992). For ease of interpretation, regression results were retransformed back into natural units (hours; Manning 1998).
Calculating the Cost of Informal Care
Opportunity cost, or the value of a resource in its next best use to society, is the preferred measure of cost for economic analyses in health care (Gold et al. 1996). The opportunity cost of an informal caregiver's time is sometimes assigned using the average hourly wage of working individuals with similar characteristics (age, gender, education); but, for some groups of caregivers (retired elderly individuals, for instance), there are no appropriate wage data. An alternative approach is to use the market price of an equivalent service (such as a home health aide) as an estimate of the opportunity cost of a caregiver's time. Some argue, however, that this method may overstate the cost of caregiver time because, presumably, a caregiver values his/her time at less than the home health aide wage, or else a home health aide would be hired to provide the care (Gold et al. 1996). Because many caregivers in our analysis were retired, we used this latter method to estimate the yearly cost of informal caregiving for each DM category by multiplying the 1998 average national wage for a home health aide ($8.17 per hour; Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999) by the weekly hours of care, and then multiplying by 52 (weeks per year). We calculated both upper- and lower-bound cost estimates for informal caregiving by using the upper-bound (Model 1) and lower-bound (Model 6) estimates of caregiving hours attributable to DM.
We tested the significance of the interaction between diabetes and each of the other chronic diseases included in the analysis to examine the hypothesis that the presence of diabetes is associated with increased caregiving time for other related and unrelated comorbidities. None of these interaction terms reached statistical significance, so they were not included in the final models used to determine adjusted informal caregiving hours.
All analyses were weighted and adjusted for the complex sampling design (stratification, clustering, and nonresponse) of the AHEAD survey (Soldo et al. 1997; STATA Reference Manual: Release 6.0, 1999). STATA Statistical Software: Release 6.0 was used for all analyses.
The AHEAD Study was approved by the Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan. Data used for this analysis contained no unique identifiers, so respondent anonymity was maintained.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
ADL and IADL Impairments
Individuals with DM were significantly more likely than those without DM to report at least one ADL or IADL impairment (28% of those without DM, about 40% of individuals with diabetes taking no medications or oral medication only, and 54% of those taking insulin; p < .001; Table 2 ). The mean number of ADL and IADL impairments for those with DM taking insulin was more than twice that for those without DM (p < .001).
|
Weekly Hours of Informal Caregiving
Elderly individuals with DM received significantly more weekly hours of informal caregiving than those without DM. Before adjustment for any other covariates (Model 1), those without DM received a mean of 6.1 hr per week of informal care, those with DM taking no medications received 10.5 hr, those with DM taking oral medicines received 10.1 hr, and those taking insulin received 14.4 hr (p < .01). Differences across the DM categories in sociodemographic measures and comorbidities "unrelated" to DM (Model 2) accounted for a relatively small portion of the additional caregiving received by those with diabetes, as suggested by the small changes in caregiving hours for each group after adjustment for these variables (data not shown). In contrast, higher rates of both macrovascular (Model 3) and microvascular (Model 4) diabetic complications did account for a significant share of the additional caregiving received by individuals with DM, especially among those taking insulin. After adjusting for these complications, the difference in caregiving hours between the No-DM group and the insulin group decreased by about one-third, from 7.8 hr to 5.2 hr. The addition of controls for dementia and incontinence (Model 5) did not significantly change informal caregiving hours for those with DM, suggesting that these conditions did not account for much of the difference in caregiving between those with and without DM, once adjustments for important macrovascular and microvascular complications were made. Finally, adjusting for the total number of medications (Model 6) further reduced the difference in caregiving between groups, most notably for those taking insulin. Adjustment for the number of medications decreased the difference in caregiving hours between those without DM and those taking insulin by about one-quarter, from 5.2 to 4.0.
Yearly Cost of Informal Caregiving for Diabetes
Table 3 shows the estimated hours per week and cost per year of the informal caregiving associated with diabetes. Using the unadjusted hours of informal caregiving for each DM category (the "upper-bound estimate"), the cost of caregiving for those without DM was $2,600 per year, whereas the cost for those with DM taking no medication was $4,500, or an additional cost of $1,900 per year for those with DM. There was an additional yearly cost of $1,700 for those taking oral medication and $3,500 for those taking insulin. Using the adjusted caregiving hours from Model 6 (the "lower-bound" estimate), the additional yearly cost associated with DM was $1,000 for those taking no medication, $800 for those using oral medications, and $1,700 for those using insulin.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The relative magnitude and importance of informal caregiving for diabetes can be put in perspective by comparing its cost to that of other components of diabetes care. For instance, the estimated combined cost of both nursing home and paid home health services for individuals age 65 and over with diabetes in the United States is about $5.4 billion per year (in 1998 dollars; American Diabetes Association 1998). Our estimate of between $3 billion and $6 billion (in 1998 dollars) for diabetes-related informal caregiving suggests that the societal cost for this unpaid component of diabetes care is similar to that for paid long-term care services.
The wide-ranging impact that diabetes and its complications may have on the independent functioning of elderly individuals is made evident by our findings: Diabetes was associated with significantly higher rates of disability for each ADL and IADL, with rates for those taking insulin nearly twice those for individuals without diabetes. Limitations due to difficulties with mobility (e.g., walking across a room or grocery shopping) were especially prevalent among those with DM, perhaps due in part to lower extremity diabetes-related complications, such as peripheral vascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, myopathy, and amputations.
Our analysis suggests that increased rates of heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment were important predictors of disability that, in turn, led to about one-third of the increased informal caregiving associated with diabetes. In addition, the significantly greater number of medications used by those with diabetes was associated with a significant portion of the increased informal care received by those with diabetes. However, caution should be used when interpreting the relative importance of these factors. The significant correlation among these variables makes it difficult to disentangle the independent influence of each (Gujarati 1988). We added variables to the regression model in an order that seemed clinically reasonable (i.e., macrovascular complications, microvascular complications, and then medications), but changing the order in which the variables were added would change their estimated relative impact on caregiving for diabetes due to the correlation among them.
The significant rates of disability among elderly individuals with diabetes, and the significant quantity of informal caregiving provided to address those disabilities, underline the growing importance of supporting patients and their families as they work together to manage diabetes and to prevent its disabling complications. In particular, improved education of providers and patients (Brown 1988), optimal disease management programs (Aubert et al. 1998), and improved systems of communication (e.g., via telemedicine; Po 2000; Tsang et al. 2001) may all play an important role in reducing the burden placed on the caregivers of patients with diabetes. Future research on these types of interventions should carefully assess not only their impact on patient health outcomes, but also their effect on caregivers. Our analysis shows that diabetes caregiving represents a critically important outcome at both the family and societal levels, but it is an outcome that has been mostly overlooked in past studies of the clinical and economic impact of diabetes.
In addition, our study suggests that a substantial proportion of the caregiving for diabetes is due to potentially preventable complications, such as heart disease, stroke, visual loss, and lower extremity amputations (American Diabetes Association 1998; Vijan, Hofer, and Hayward 1997, Vijan, Hofer, and Hayward 2000). Improved application of treatments that minimize the risk of these complications (e.g., management of hypertension and lipids, glucose control, and appropriate screening) would not only reduce rates of complications, but would also substantially reduce the burden of caregiving in patients with diabetes.
The conceptual model and analytic techniques used in this paper to study caregiving for diabetes can also be used to better identify the costs of caregiving for other common chronic diseases in elderly individuals, such as dementia (Langa et al. 2001a), cancer (Hayman et al. 2001), arthritis, and heart disease. A more complete understanding of the relative caregiving burdens associated with particular chronic diseases among elderly individuals might help both policy makers and clinicians target caregiver interventions and resources most cost-effectively (Gold et al. 1996).
We used methods that likely led to conservative estimates of diabetes-related informal caregiving time and cost. Most importantly, only caregiving for ADLs and IADLs is included in the analysis. Other time costs, such as those associated with help with home glucose monitoring or driving diabetic patients to physician visits and dialysis centers, are not included in the analysis. Also, the AHEAD survey does not identify infrequent help for ADLs, so this caregiving is also not included in the analysis. Finally, the hourly wage that we used as an estimate of informal care cost was lower than that used in many prior studies of the cost of informal caregiving for other diseases (Ernst and Hay 1994; Max et al. 1995; Ostbye and Crosse 1994; Rice et al. 1993; Stommel et al. 1994; Weinberger et al. 1993).
A number of potential limitations of our study merit comment. First, our classification of the presence of diabetes, present medications, and comorbidities was based on respondent self-report and was not confirmed by medical records or serum glucose testing. However, self-reports of diabetes medications have been found to be quite accurate (Hayward et al. 1997), and the self-reported diabetes prevalence in the AHEAD cohort (
13%) was nearly the same as that found in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), a previous population-based study (Harris et al. 1998). NHANES III estimated that an additional 6% of elderly individuals in the United States have undiagnosed diabetes. To the extent that those with undiagnosed diabetes have disabilities requiring informal care, our study underestimates the total national cost of informal care for diabetes.
We did not have data on the presence of important diabetic complications, such as kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic disease, and lower extremity amputations. We expect that these complications were responsible for at least some of the "unexplained" difference in informal care for diabetes that we found in our full regression model (Model 6).
Due to lack of necessary data, we were also unable to assess whether caring for elderly individuals with diabetes was associated with significant negative health effects among caregivers, such as increased rates of depression, anxiety, and poorer perceived health status. Future research should focus on whether such negative health effects occur and, if so, whether there are unique aspects of diabetes caregiving that are especially likely to lead to negative health outcomes. Such research could help guide potential caregiver interventions aimed at reducing these negative health outcomes (Schulz, Gallagher-Thompson, Haley, and Czaja 2000).
Finally, as with all observational studies, the possibility exists that an omitted variable (e.g., another comorbidity) that is correlated with both the presence of diabetes and informal caregiving is the "true cause" of the increased caregiving that we found for those with diabetes. However, we included important sociodemographic measures and other common comorbidities among elderly individuals that have previously been shown to influence the level of informal care. In addition, as discussed previously, our estimate of the time and cost associated with informal caregiving for diabetes is a conservative one, so it is unlikely that we have significantly overestimated the cost of diabetes caregiving due to an omitted variable.
This population-based analysis of informal care for elderly individuals with diabetes makes clear the significant burden that this increasingly prevalent condition places on elderly individuals, their families, and society. The economic cost associated with informal caregiving should be considered in future analyses of both the public health consequences of diabetes and interventions aimed at decreasing diabetic complications. Future studies should also examine how increasing rates of obesity and diabetes among younger Americans might reduce the pool of potential informal caregivers for elderly individuals due to early diabetic complications and subsequent disability among middle-aged adults.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Kimberly Andrus for her help with the preparation of the manuscript.
Received for publication February 26, 2001. Accepted for publication July 27, 2001.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractPrior Research on Informal...Conceptual Model of Informal...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. R. Curtis and D. B. White Practical Guidance for Evidence-Based ICU Family Conferences Chest, October 1, 2008; 134(4): 835 - 843. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. L Sayers, T. White, C. Zubritsky, and D. W Oslin Family involvement in the care of healthy medical outpatients Fam. Pract., June 1, 2006; 23(3): 317 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Wray, M. B. Ofstedal, K. M. Langa, and C. S. Blaum The Effect of Diabetes on Disability in Middle-Aged and Older Adults J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., September 1, 2005; 60(9): 1206 - 1211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. W. Rabow, J. M. Hauser, and J. Adams Supporting Family Caregivers at the End of Life: "They Don't Know What They Don't Know" JAMA, January 28, 2004; 291(4): 483 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. R Sharkey, C. Giuliani, P. S Haines, L. G Branch, J. Busby-Whitehead, and N. Zohoori Summary measure of dietary musculoskeletal nutrient (calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, and phosphorus) intakes is associated with lower-extremity physical performance in homebound elderly men and women Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2003; 77(4): 847 - 856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
