Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Effect of Caregiving from Children on Health Status of the Elderly: Protection or Selection? Zhang Zhen Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

Published byBathsheba Neal Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Effect of Caregiving from Children on Health Status of the Elderly: Protection or Selection? Zhang Zhen Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research."— Presentation transcript:

1 The Effect of Caregiving from Children on Health Status of the Elderly: Protection or Selection? Zhang Zhen Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Rostock, 2004

2 Introduction Protection of caregiving –Caregiving improves the health/survival status of the elderly Selection of caregiving –The elderly in poor health are more likely to receive caregiving Caregiving from childrenHealth/survival status Question: if such two effects are mixed in, e.g., a regression model, what will the estimation of the effect of caregiving on health status of the elderly be?

3 Introduction Unobserved heterogeneity: –Were the selection or unobserved heterogeneity ignored, the estimation will be biased to some extent or even completely wrong Initial: selection process for mortality (Vaupel, Manton & Stallard, 1979) More extensive: –Fertility (Larsen & Vaupel, 1993) –Marriage and divorce (Lillard, Brien & Waite, 1995) –Marital status and mortality (Lillard & Panis, 1996) –Mortality and health service use (Panis & Lillard, 1994) More recently: –Caregiving from children significantly negatively influences the survival status of the oldest old without control of health conditions of the elderly (Zhang, 2002)

4 Introduction Joint model –Simultaneously investigating two effects of caregiving with consideration of unobserved heterogeneity Dyadic approach –Theoretical progress: Aging of individual → Aging in family (Allen, Blieszner & Roberto, 2000) –Chinese context: Norms of filial piety (Bartlett & Phillips 1997; Lee & Xiao, 1998 ), which were even written into laws and constitution (Wu,1994) “need-based support” (Lee & Xiao, 1998)

5 Methods Sample: dyadic data –The 3rd wave of CLHLS in 2002 –Survey for Family Dynamics of the Elderly’s Children (SFDC) in 2002 conducted at the same time as the 3rd wave of CLHLS An adult child age 35-65 of each older respondent age 65+ in this sample pool was randomly chosen by specific composition of sex, age and rural/urban residence of children. Dyads valid for this study: 4364 → 3929 Out of age range: 65-105 for the elderly; 35-65 for adult child Missing value in vital variable (e.g. SRH of the elderly)

6 Methods Model –Ordinal Probit model for SRH of older parent y*: a latent propensity dependent on independent variables, and y : SRH reported by older parent; X p : sociodemographic characteristics of older parent; H p : health condition indicators of older parent ; C: caregiving to older parent reported by the adult child; ε: residual term for SRH of the parent.

7 Methods Model –Probit model for caregiving from child p*: a latent propensity dependent on independent variables, and p: an observed indicator variable; X c : sociodemographic characteristics of child; H p : health condition indicators of older parent; δ: residual term for occurrence of caregiving from child.

8 Methods SRH of ParentCaregiving from Child Parent ’ s Information SRH SexX AgeX RaceX Place of residenceX Living arrangementX Marital StatusX IADLXX ADLXX Suffering from serious diseaseXX Child ’ s Information SexX AgeX Urban/rural residenceX Coresident with parentX CaregivingX Table 1 Model Specifications

9 Methods The heterogeneity components for two models above are assumed to be jointly normally distributed The critical test of selection is whether σ εδ =0. Software package: aML 2.0 (Lillard and Panis, 2003)

10 Results Older Parent (n=3929)%Adult Child (n=3929)% SRHPoor13.4CaregivingNo58.5 Fair38.5Yes41.5 Good35.5SexFemale30.5 Very good12.6Male69.5 SexFemale53.0Age35-4429.1 Male47.045-5437.7 Age65-7940.555-6533.2 80-8929.3ResidenceRural59.2 90-10530.2Urban40.8 EthicMinorities9.1Coresident with parentYes43.6 Han90.9No56.4 ResidenceUrban46.3 Rural54.7 Marital StatusUnmarried63.5 Married36.5 Living arrangementAlone14.2 With families85.8 ADLIndependent79.0 Dependent21.0 IADLIndependent38.8 Dependent61.2 Serious diseaseNo82.0 At lease once18.0 Table 2 Sample Characteristics

11 SRHCaregivingJoint Model τ1τ1 -2.009 *** -2.207 *** τ2τ2 -0.275 ** -0.216 τ3τ3 1.454 *** 1.768 *** Male (female=0) 0.105 * 0.138 ** Age (65-79=0) 80-89 0.0870.074 90-105 0.227 *** 0.200 ** Han (minorities=0) 0.180 * 0.194 * Rural (urban=0) -0.083-0.076 Married (unmarried=0) -0.0680.018 Live with families (alone=0) 0.092-0.065 ADL dependent (independent=0) -0.673 *** -0.873 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) -0.719 *** -0.983 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) -0.658 *** -0.858 *** Caregiving (no=0) -0.125 ** 0.726 *** Intercept -0.554 *** -0.238 ** Male (female=0) -0.205 ** 0.528 *** Age(35-44=0) 45-54 0.383 *** 1.047 *** 55-65 0.801 *** -0.171 * Rural (urban=0) -0.124-1.567 *** Not-coresident with parent(yes=0) -1.312 *** -0.750 *** ADL dependent (independent=0) 0.471 *** 0.582 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) 0.755 *** 0.929 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) 0.673 *** 0.821 *** σεσε 1.140 *** 1.478 *** σδσδ 1.429 *** 1.903 *** ρ εδ -0.425 *** ln-L -5034.3-2399.3-7427.0 * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 3 Joint Model vs. Separate Models for SRH and Caregiving

12 SRHCaregivingJoint Model τ1τ1 -2.009 *** -2.207 *** τ2τ2 -0.275 ** -0.216 τ3τ3 1.454 *** 1.768 *** Male (female=0) 0.105 * 0.138 ** Age (65-79=0) 80-89 0.0870.074 90-105 0.227 *** 0.200 ** Han (minorities=0) 0.180 * 0.194 * Rural (urban=0) -0.083-0.076 Married (unmarried=0) -0.0680.018 Live with families (alone=0) 0.092-0.065 ADL dependent (independent=0) -0.673 *** -0.873 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) -0.719 *** -0.983 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) -0.658 *** -0.858 *** Caregiving (no=0) -0.125 ** 0.726 *** Intercept -0.554 *** -0.238 ** Male (female=0) -0.205 ** 0.528 *** Age(35-44=0) 45-54 0.383 *** 1.047 *** 55-65 0.801 *** -0.171 * Rural (urban=0) -0.124-1.567 *** Not-coresident with parent(yes=0) -1.312 *** -0.750 *** ADL dependent (independent=0) 0.471 *** 0.582 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) 0.755 *** 0.929 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) 0.673 *** 0.821 *** σεσε 1.140 *** 1.478 *** σδσδ 1.429 *** 1.903 *** ρ εδ -0.425 *** ln-L -5034.3-2399.3-7427.0 * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 3 Joint Model vs. Separate Models for SRH and Caregiving

13 SRHCaregivingJoint Model τ1τ1 -2.009 *** -2.207 *** τ2τ2 -0.275 ** -0.216 τ3τ3 1.454 *** 1.768 *** Male (female=0) 0.105 * 0.138 ** Age (65-79=0) 80-89 0.0870.074 90-105 0.227 *** 0.200 ** Han (minorities=0) 0.180 * 0.194 * Rural (urban=0) -0.083-0.076 Married (unmarried=0) -0.0680.018 Live with families (alone=0) 0.092-0.065 ADL dependent (independent=0) -0.673 *** -0.873 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) -0.719 *** -0.983 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) -0.658 *** -0.858 *** Caregiving (no=0) -0.125 ** 0.726 *** Intercept -0.554 *** -0.238 ** Male (female=0) -0.205 ** 0.528 *** Age(35-44=0) 45-54 0.383 *** 1.047 *** 55-64 0.801 *** -0.171 * Rural (urban=0) -0.124-1.567 *** Not-coresident with parent(yes=0) -1.312 *** -0.750 *** ADL dependent (independent=0) 0.471 *** 0.582 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) 0.755 *** 0.929 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) 0.673 *** 0.821 *** σεσε 1.140 *** 1.478 *** σδσδ 1.429 *** 1.903 *** ρ εδ -0.425 *** ln-L -5034.3-2399.3-7427.0 * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 3 Joint Model vs. Separate Models for SRH and Caregiving

14 SRHCaregivingJoint Model τ1τ1 -2.009 *** -2.207 *** τ2τ2 -0.275 ** -0.216 τ3τ3 1.454 *** 1.768 *** Male (female=0) 0.105 * 0.138 ** Age (65-79=0) 80-89 0.0870.074 90-105 0.227 *** 0.200 ** Han (minorities=0) 0.180 * 0.194 * Rural (urban=0) -0.083-0.076 Married (unmarried=0) -0.0680.018 Live with families (alone=0) 0.092-0.065 ADL dependent (independent=0) -0.673 *** -0.873 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) -0.719 *** -0.983 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) -0.658 *** -0.858 *** Caregiving (no=0) -0.125 ** 0.726 *** Intercept -0.554 *** -0.238 ** Male (female=0) -0.205 ** 0.528 *** Age(35-44=0) 45-54 0.383 *** 1.047 *** 55-65 0.801 *** -0.171 * Rural (urban=0) -0.124-1.567 *** Not-coresident with parent(yes=0) -1.312 *** -0.750 *** ADL dependent (independent=0) 0.471 *** 0.582 *** IADL dependent (independent=0) 0.755 *** 0.929 *** 1+ serious disease (no=0) 0.673 *** 0.821 *** σεσε 1.140 *** 1.478 *** σδσδ 1.429 *** 1.903 *** ρ εδ -0.425 *** ln-L -5034.3-2399.3-7427.0 * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 3 Joint Model vs. Separate Models for SRH and Caregiving

15 Conclusions There is the selection for caregiving If the selection for caregiving is ignored, the protective effect of caregiving to the health status of the elderly will be misestimated heavily. When the selection for caregiving is “splitted out”, the protective impact of caregiving on the health of the elderly is shown up.

16 Acknowledgment I want to acknowledge my debt to Prof. Jan Hoem for his helpful encouragement for this study, and to Prof. Zeng Yi, Prof. Liu Yuzhi, Prof. Lu Jiehua, Prof. Zheng Zhenzhen, and Prof. Zhou Yun for their comments. I also wish to thank Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research for the scholarship to support this study which became one of main parts of my doctoral dissertation.

Download ppt "The Effect of Caregiving from Children on Health Status of the Elderly: Protection or Selection? Zhang Zhen Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research."

Similar presentations

Informal Care and Medicare Expenditures Courtney Harold Van Houtven Edward C. Norton Funding: National Institute on Aging, NIH, R03 AG021485.

Informal Care and Medicare Expenditures Courtney Harold Van Houtven Edward C. Norton Funding: National Institute on Aging, NIH, R03 AG
Grandparenting and health in Europe: a longitudinal analysis Di Gessa G, Glaser K and Tinker A Institute of Gerontology, Department of Social Science,

Grandparenting and health in Europe: a longitudinal analysis Di Gessa G, Glaser K and Tinker A Institute of Gerontology, Department of Social Science,
Impact of Migration on Older Age Parents A Case Study of Two Communes in Battambang Province, Cambodia Paper presented at Mekong Workshop, Salt Lake City.

Impact of Migration on Older Age Parents A Case Study of Two Communes in Battambang Province, Cambodia Paper presented at Mekong Workshop, Salt Lake City.
1 DYNAMICS OF FAMILY AND ELDERLY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS IN CHINA -- New Lessons Learned From the 2000 Census (forthcoming in China Review) Zeng Yi and Zhenglian.

1 DYNAMICS OF FAMILY AND ELDERLY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS IN CHINA -- New Lessons Learned From the 2000 Census (forthcoming in China Review) Zeng Yi and Zhenglian.
Trends in living arrangements of older adults in Belgium 1991-2013 Anne Herm, Luc Dal and Michel Poulain.

Trends in living arrangements of older adults in Belgium Anne Herm, Luc Dal and Michel Poulain.
Health Impacts of Caregiving: FINDINGS FROM THE SINGAPORE INFORMAL CARE SURVEY Authors: Angelique Chan, Chetna Malhotra, Rahul Malhotra, Truls Ostbye Institution:

Health Impacts of Caregiving: FINDINGS FROM THE SINGAPORE INFORMAL CARE SURVEY Authors: Angelique Chan, Chetna Malhotra, Rahul Malhotra, Truls Ostbye Institution:
Mortality of the Oldest Old in China: the Impacts of Socioeconomic Status and Leisure Activities Rongjun Sun Department of Sociology Cleveland State University.

Mortality of the Oldest Old in China: the Impacts of Socioeconomic Status and Leisure Activities Rongjun Sun Department of Sociology Cleveland State University.
Carl E. Bentelspacher, Ph.D., Department of Social Work Lori Ann Campbell, Ph.D., Department of Sociology Michael Leber Department of Sociology Southern.

Carl E. Bentelspacher, Ph.D., Department of Social Work Lori Ann Campbell, Ph.D., Department of Sociology Michael Leber Department of Sociology Southern.
Separation and intergenerational family obligations. Evidence from the Netherlands (and Flanders) 8th meeting of the European Network for the Sociological.

Separation and intergenerational family obligations. Evidence from the Netherlands (and Flanders) 8th meeting of the European Network for the Sociological.
Discrete-time Event History Analysis Fiona Steele Centre for Multilevel Modelling Institute of Education.

Discrete-time Event History Analysis Fiona Steele Centre for Multilevel Modelling Institute of Education.
Exposure to Family Planning Messages through Mass Media and Interpersonal Communication and Current Contraceptive Use in Ghana Claire Bailey

Exposure to Family Planning Messages through Mass Media and Interpersonal Communication and Current Contraceptive Use in Ghana Claire Bailey
By Sanjay Kumar, Ph.D National Programme Officer (M&E), UNFPA – India

By Sanjay Kumar, Ph.D National Programme Officer (M&E), UNFPA – India
Unpaid Care and Labor Supply of Middle-aged Men and Women in Urban China Lan Liu Institute of Population Research, Peking University Xiaoyuan Dong Department.

Unpaid Care and Labor Supply of Middle-aged Men and Women in Urban China Lan Liu Institute of Population Research, Peking University Xiaoyuan Dong Department.
Linking lives through time www.lscs.ac.uk Marital Status, Health and Mortality: The Role of Living Arrangement Paul Boyle, Peteke Feijten and Gillian Raab.

Linking lives through time Marital Status, Health and Mortality: The Role of Living Arrangement Paul Boyle, Peteke Feijten and Gillian Raab.
Plan.be P. Willemé and J. Geerts Federal Planning Bureau Projecting future needs, use and supply of LTC in Europe iHEA, Toronto, 10 – 13 July 2011.

Plan.be P. Willemé and J. Geerts Federal Planning Bureau Projecting future needs, use and supply of LTC in Europe iHEA, Toronto, 10 – 13 July 2011.
FORGOTTEN MARRIAGES? MEASURING THE RELIABILITY OF RETROSPECTIVE MARRIAGE HISTORIES March 20, 2012 INED – Quality and Comparability of Demographic Data.

FORGOTTEN MARRIAGES? MEASURING THE RELIABILITY OF RETROSPECTIVE MARRIAGE HISTORIES March 20, 2012 INED – Quality and Comparability of Demographic Data.
The effects of persistent poverty on children’s outcomes Dr Jung-Sook Lee University of New South Wales.

The effects of persistent poverty on children’s outcomes Dr Jung-Sook Lee University of New South Wales.
Marital Disruption and the Risk of Losing Health Insurance Coverage James Kirby AHRQ.

Marital Disruption and the Risk of Losing Health Insurance Coverage James Kirby AHRQ.
Successful Ageing of the Oldest Old in China Du Peng Gerontology Institute, Renmin University of China.

Successful Ageing of the Oldest Old in China Du Peng Gerontology Institute, Renmin University of China.
Aging and family support in the State of Mexico Ma. Viridiana Sosa Márquez Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados de la Población Universidad Autónoma.

Aging and family support in the State of Mexico Ma. Viridiana Sosa Márquez Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados de la Población Universidad Autónoma.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google