CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Intergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsNursing care and research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Valuing the Contributions of Family Caregivers to the Care Economy

Open access
Fast, Janet, Duncan, Karen A., Keating, Norah C., Kim, Choong·2024·Journal of Family and Economic Issues
DOI 10.1007/s10834-023-09899-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to estimate the monetary value of Canadians’ family care work, to highlight inequalities within the family care sector and place this work within the care economy. Using Statistics Canada’s 2018 General Social Survey, we estimated the replacement cost of the 5.7 billion hours of respondents’ care work at between $97.1 billion and $112.7 billion. We used descriptive, backward stepwise regression and dominance analyses to examine the distribution of care responsibilities among caregivers. Caregivers comprised 22.1% of the sample (6.8 million Canadians). Living arrangement explained most (81-83%) of the variance in the value of unpaid care work, followed by generation (14-15%), income (2%) and gender (1-2%). These findings provide powerful evidence of the economic value of family care work and of the inequalities among family caregivers in the magnitude of their contributions. Monetizing the value of family care makes it more visible, locates it in the context of the broader care economy and establishes its relationship to the much more visible and valued realm of paid care work. This contextualization also responds to global action plans and resolutions urging governments to create systems of long-term and continuing care for people with chronic conditions and disabilities rather than imposing sole responsibility on unpaid caregivers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10834-023-09899-8

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Alberta, family caregivers provide 15-40% of care in continuing care.

    “Alberta’s caregivers provide between 75 and 90% of care in community settings and 15–40% in continuing care [11,12,13].”

    From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Living arrangements section (page unavailable) reports that family caregivers provide an average of 8.5 hours per week of care to people in residential care. It does not estimate what percentage of continuing care they provide. The Data section (page unavailable) describes a Canada-wide survey, not an Alberta-specific estimate, so the 15–40% figure is unsupported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Alberta, family caregivers provide between 75% and 90% of care in community settings.

    “Family caregivers provide up to 90% of care in Alberta’s communities”

    From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Data section describes a Canada-wide survey, not an Alberta-specific estimate. The Living arrangements section reports where care receivers lived and caregivers’ hours of work, but not the share of all community care provided by family caregivers. Searches for 75% and 90% found no such estimate in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cès, S., Hlebec, V., & Yghemonos, S. (2019). Valuing informal care in Europe: Analytical review of existing valuation methods. Eurocarers. https://eurocarers.org/publications/valuing-informal-care-in-europe/
  2. Folbre, N. (2018). Developing care: Recent research on the care economy and economic development. International Development Research Centre.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Fast, J., Duncan, K. A., Keating, N. C., & Kim, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Fast, Janet
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Family and Economic Issues
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-07-04
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
236-249
ISSN
  • 1058-0476 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3475
DOI
10.1007/s10834-023-09899-8
OpenAlex
W4383103020
Cited by
35
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
15.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2023-10-04)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Family and Economic Issues (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
AGE-WELL (AGE-WELL)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
Keywords
family caregivers, unpaid care work, care economy, replacement cost, living arrangements, gender differences in caregiving, intergenerational caregiving, long-term care, disability care, chronic disease, Canada

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review