Author
Listed:
- Meng Huo
- Fei Wang
- Yongxin Shang
- Sarah E Patterson
- Markus Schafer
Abstract
ObjectivesFamily and unpaid caregivers are mainstays of help with daily activities when older adults experience health problems; caregivers can also be relied on as confidants for discussing important matters. It remains unclear what characteristics of caregiving relationships may underlie caregivers’ confidant status, how serving this additional role affects their psychological well-being, and whether these associations vary by the presence of dementia in older adults.MethodsWe used data from the 2017 National Health and Aging Trends Study and the National Study of Caregiving. Participants included 1,694 family or other unpaid caregivers of 1,126 older adults receiving self-care, mobility, or household help due to health and functioning. We estimated logistic regression models for being nominated as a confidant and linear regression models for caregivers’ psychological well-being.ResultsCaregivers who were spouses or children and who reported more positive relationships with the older adults they provided care for were more likely to be nominated as confidants; yet the association involving relationship quality was moderated by older adults’ dementia status. Being a confidant was associated with better well-being among caregivers of older adults without dementia, but not for caregivers of older adults with dementia.DiscussionCaregivers of older adults with dementia tend to also be a confidant, but serving these multiple roles is only associated with positive psychological well-being for those caring for older adults without dementia. We call for more research to better understand the unique stressors that caregivers experience when serving as confidants for older adults with dementia.
Suggested Citation
Meng Huo & Fei Wang & Yongxin Shang & Sarah E Patterson & Markus Schafer, 2026.
"Caregivers serving as confidants: relationship correlates and well-being by care-recipients’ dementia status,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 81(3), pages 273.-273..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:81:y:2026:i:3:p:gbaf273.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:81:y:2026:i:3:p:gbaf273.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.