The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Cross-country variations in the caregiver role: evidence from the ENTWINE-iCohort study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, economically developed countries face similar ageing demographics and the challenge of a 'care gap', yet they vary due to different care and formal support systems, and different cultural and societal norms around illness and care. The aim of this exploratory study was to examine cross-country variations in caregiver motivations, willingness, values, meaning in life, illness beliefs, and experiences of wellbeing, gain, health-related quality of life, burden and depression, across 6 European countries and Israel. Cross-country differences in the above-mentioned informal caregiver experiences are rarely described. METHODS: An online survey (ENTWINE-iCohort) was conducted using validated measures wherever possible. This paper utilises data from 879 caregivers and seven countries (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the UK, and Israel). RESULTS: No consistent finding supporting the concurrent relationship between caregiver support policies/country culture and caregiver motivations/willingness was found. Caregivers in countries typically characterised by individualist cultures reported lower familism, higher self-enhancement values, and greater perceived illness threat compared to more collectivist countries. Search for meaning was higher in poorer countries than in wealthier countries. Higher negative caregiver experiences (e.g., burden) and lower positive experiences (e.g., wellbeing) were generally observed in countries with underdeveloped caregiver support as compared to countries with more developed formal support systems. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-country variations can be explained to varying degrees by national policies around care (or their absence) and country cultural contexts. The results emphasise the importance of formal support services for achieving positive caregiver experiences, and help inform the development of policies and measures to support caregivers in Europe and Israel.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Cultural differences are known to affect caregiver motivation, wellbeing, and burden.
“Cultural differences are known to affect caregiver motivation, wellbeing, and burden; however, there is limited research on whether these differences translate to more or fewer hours of care provided.25–29”
From Societal Costs of Dementia: 204 Countries, 2000–2019 (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
The Conclusions (page not provided) report cross-country differences in caregiver wellbeing and burden, influenced by support systems and, to varying degrees, cultural contexts. But they explicitly find no consistent relationship between country culture and caregiver motivation or willingness, so the claim overstates what is known about motivation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is limited research on whether cultural differences translate to more or fewer hours of care provided.
“however, there is limited research on whether these differences translate to more or fewer hours of care provided.25–29”
From Societal Costs of Dementia: 204 Countries, 2000–2019 (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
The Background says cross-country research on informal caregiving is limited, but identifies gaps in psychosocial outcomes rather than hours of care. Results > Sample characteristics reports that weekly care hours varied across countries; it does not say whether cultural differences explain that variation or that research on this question is limited. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Revenson T, Griva K, Luszczynska A, Morrison V, Panagopoulou E, Vilchinsky N, et al. Caregiving in the illness context. London: Springer; 2016. · DOI
- Frankl VE. The will to meaning: foundations and applications of logotherapy. New York: Penguin; 1988.
- Weinman J, Heijmans M, Figueiras M. Carer perceptions of chronic illness. In: Cameron LD, Leventhal H, editors. The self-regulation of Health and illness Behaviour. London: Routledge; 2012. pp. 207–17.
- Bouget D, Spasova S, Vanhercke B. Work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in Europe. A study of national policies. Brussels: European Commission; 2016.
- Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
- Schwartz SH. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Quest Packag Eur Soc Surv. 2003;259:261.
- Schwartz SH. An overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic values. Psychol Cult. 2012;11:12–3.
- Pearlin LI. Caregiver’s stress and coping study. San Francisco: University of California; 1988.
- Yurtsever S, Özge A, Kara A, Yandim A, Kalav S, Yesil P. The relationship between care burden and social support in Turkish Alzheimer patients family caregivers: cross-sectional study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3:1.
Metadata
- Authors
- Zarzycki, M., Vilchinsky, N., Bei, E., Ferraris, G., Seddon, D., & Morrison, V.
- Affiliations
- Bangor University (GB)
- Bar-Ilan University (IL)
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Zarzycki, Mikołaj
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2024-03-26
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 898-898
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10967140
- OpenAlex
- W4393202550
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 14.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Hope's Institutional Research Archive (Liverpool Hope University) (acceptedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (814072)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
- Keywords
- informal caregivers, cross-national variation, caregiver burden, caregiver well-being, health-related quality of life, caregiver depression, familism, individualism-collectivism, illness beliefs, meaning in life, caregiver support policy, care gaps, aging, Europe, Israel
- MeSH terms
- Europe, Greece, Humans, Netherlands, Quality of Life, Caregivers
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
