Cited by 178Intergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingNursing care and researchAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Race Differences in Characteristics and Experiences of Black and White Caregivers of Older Americans

Open access

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Racial disparities in health and socioeconomic characteristics of older adults have implications for the experiences of their family and unpaid caregivers, but knowledge to date has primarily drawn from convenience samples. Using a population-based sample, we examine associations between caregiver race and caregiving-related effects. Research Design and Methods: Study participants include white (n = 992) and black (n = 556) respondents to the 2015 National Study of Caregiving who assisted community-dwelling older adults with disabilities who participated in the National Health and Aging Trends Study. Guided by Pearlin’s Stress Process Model, hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed to examine race differences in caregiving-related effects after adjusting for caregiving context, stressors, and resources. Results: Relative to white caregivers, blacks more often provided in excess of 40 hr of care per week (54.3% vs 38.6%) and more often cared for an older adult with dementia (27.1% vs 20.7%) who was living below the federal poverty line (31.7% vs 11.9%) or was Medicaid-eligible (42.2% vs 11.8%). Black caregivers more often used supportive services (32.9% vs 24.8%). In fully adjusted regression models, black caregivers were more likely to report gains and less likely to report emotional difficulty than whites. Service utilization did not attenuate caregiving-related emotional difficulty or participation restrictions, regardless of race. Discussion and Implications: Findings highlight caregiving disparities and counterintuitive differences in experiences and indicate the importance of identifying supports such as paid family leave and faith and community-based programming to better support community-dwelling low-income older adults and their family and 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 · 10.1093/geront/gnaa042

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. ACL Administration for Community Living, .
  2. Alliance, 2006, National Consensus Report on Caregiver Assessment: Volume II, Voices and Views from the Field
  3. Fields, 2016, Profile of Medicare beneficiaries by race and ethnicity: A chartpack
  4. Freedman, 2019, National Study of Caregiving (NSOC) I–III Weighting Guide
  5. Freedman, 2019, National Study of Caregiving I–III User Guide
  6. Kasper, 2013, Classification of persons by dementia status in the National Health and Aging Trends Study
  7. Kelly, 2013, Listening to family caregivers: The need to include family caregiver assessment in Medicaid home-and-community-based service waiver programs
  8. Montaquila, 2014, National Health and Aging Trends Study Development of Round 2 Survey Weights
  9. Spillman, 2014, Informal caregiving for older Americans: An analysis of the 2011 National Study of Caregiving
  10. StataCorp, 2017, Stata statistical software: Release 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fabius, C. D., Wolff, J. L., & Kasper, J. D.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Fabius, Chanee D
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2020-05-13
Volume
60
Issue
7
Pages
1244-1253
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W3024212446
Cited by
178
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 1
FWCI
27.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG047859, R01AG054004, U01AG032947)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Life-span and Life-course Studies › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Keywords
racial disparities, informal caregivers, family caregiving, Black caregivers, older adults with disabilities, dementia caregiving, participation restrictions, support services, low-income elderly, Medicaid eligibility, poverty, paid family leave, community-based support programs
MeSH terms
Race Factors, Aged, Disabled Persons, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, United States, Caregivers, Independent Living

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