ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019
Assessing the Role of Selection Bias in the Protective Relationship Between Caregiving and Mortality.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Caregivers have lower mortality rates than noncaregivers in population-based studies, which contradicts the caregiver-stress model and raises speculation about selection bias influencing these findings. We examined possible selection bias due to 1) sampling decisions and 2) selective participation among women (baseline mean age = 79 years) in the Caregiver-Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (Caregiver-SOF) (1999-2009), an ancillary study to the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). Caregiver-SOF includes 1,069 SOF participants (35% caregivers) from 4 US geographical areas (Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; the Monongahela Valley, Pennsylvania; and Portland, Oregon). Participants were identified by screening all SOF participants for caregiver status (1997-1999; n = 4,036; 23% caregivers) and rescreening a subset of caregivers and noncaregivers matched on sociodemographic factors 1-2 years later. Adjusted hazard ratios related caregiving to 10-year mortality in all women initially screened, subsamples representing key points in constructing Caregiver-SOF, and Caregiver-SOF. Caregivers had better functioning than noncaregivers at each screening. The association between caregiving and mortality among women invited to participate in Caregiver-SOF (41% died; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 0.88) was slightly more protective than that in all initially screened women (37% died; aHR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.95), indicating little evidence of selection bias due to sampling decisions, and was similar to that in Caregiver-SOF (39% died; aHR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.89), indicating no participation bias. These results add to a body of evidence that informal caregiving may impart health benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.