Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37166574›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2023

Family care during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Germany: longitudinal evidence on consequences for the well-being of caregivers.

Katja Möhring, Sabine Zinn, Ulrike Ehrlich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katja MöhringFaculty of Social Sciences, Economics and Business Administration, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. katja.moehring@uni-bamberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3742-5374
Sabine ZinnSocio-Economic Panel (SOEP), German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8093-086X
Ulrike EhrlichGerman Centre of Gerontology (DZA), Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4406-1756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examine changes in the well-being of family caregivers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and the SOEP-CoV study. The COVID-19 pandemic posed an extraordinary challenge for family caregivers, as care recipients are a high-risk group requiring special protection, and professional care services were severely cut back. The specific situation of the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to re-examine the caregiver stress process model. Using first difference regression models, we analyse changes in general life satisfaction and depressive symptoms (PHQ-4 score) among family caregivers between 2019 and spring 2020, differentiating by care intensity and duration of the care episode. Caregivers show similar changes in well-being as non-caregivers: a simultaneous increase in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction between 2019 and 2020. However, our results reveal heterogeneity within the group of family caregivers as we find differences according to caregiving dynamics and intensity. Among the group of continuing caregivers, high-intensity caregivers experience a larger increase in life satisfaction, and low-intensity caregivers a smaller increase in life satisfaction, compared to non-caregivers. Our results therefore provide some support for the role enhancement hypothesis for continuing caregivers with high time commitment.

Indexed as

Corona pandemicDepressionFirst difference regressionInformal careLife satisfactionSOEP-CoV

Identifiers

PMID37166574
PMCPMC10173928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.