ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Characterizing complex care relationships in Canada using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA).
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMost caregiving research and policy has focused on dyadic, unidirectional relationships with one caregiver and one care receiver despite evidence for more complex caring relationships.
objectiveTo describe caregivers and care receivers' relationships, with a focus on non-dyadic relationships, using baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we analyzed unweighted baseline CLSA data to describe different self-reported care relationships. Care relationships of interest included: a) spousal reciprocal relationships, b) care chains, where one person receives and gives care with separate individuals, c) care caravans, where one person receives care from multiple caregivers, and d) compound caregivers, where one person provides care to multiple care receivers. We estimated frequencies for categorical variables, and either means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables.
resultsOur sample included 51,338 CLSA participants. Of these respondents, 39% identified as a caregiver (mean age 62, 54% women), 6.5% identified as a care receiver (mean age 65, 58% women), and 5.3% identified as both a caregiver and care receiver (mean age 63, 65% women). Our research showed that 40% of caregivers reported giving care to 2 or more receivers and 52% of care receivers reported receiving care from 2 or more caregivers. Individuals both receiving and giving care demonstrated the following relationships: compound care chains (73%), care chains (19%), and reciprocal spousal care (4.6%). Gender characterization showed women had a wider range of care partners and were more likely to identify as caregivers and care receivers. While spouse and first degree relatives were the most commonly reported caregivers, friends and others were a large proportion of reported caregivers.
conclusionWe found that a large proportion of caregiving relationships were best described as a network that frequently included multiple caregivers, multiple care receivers, and some in both roles, as well as non-kin and extended relative participants. This characterization of care relationships allows us to better understand the needs of older adults and their caregivers as the population ages and care shifts towards aging-in-place strategies.
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.