4.3 Article

Informal support in Portugal by individuals aged 50+

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGEING
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 293-300

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10433-014-0321-0

Keywords

Co-residential carers; Extra-residential helpers/carers; Carers aged 50+; Quality of life; Portugal

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Portugal, individuals aged 50+ have an important role in the provision of co-residential care. This study aimed to rank Portugal relative to 15 European countries with regard to the prevalence of co-residential care (daily or almost daily personal care), and extra-residential help/care (household help and/or personal care) provided by individuals aged 50+, and determine the factors associated with the provision of these types of support in the Portuguese context. The study used data from the SHARE wave 4 project (2010-2011) and was based on an analysis of variance and logistic regression models. Portugal differs from other European countries, as it has the highest rate of co-residential care (12.4 %) and the lowest rate of provision of extra-residential help/care (10.8 %). It is concluded that the quality of life (QoL) of Portuguese co-residential carers is lower than the QoL of non-carers, but extra-residential help/care provided once a month or less has a positive impact on the QoL of the providers. Co-residential care and the provision of frequent extra-residential help/care (daily or weekly) were associated with a higher number of depressive symptoms. The results further showed that, in Portugal, co-residential carers and extra-residential helpers/carers have different socio-demographic, economic and health characteristics. This study demonstrates that it is important for scientific research to differentiate the type and frequency of informal support, since this can help us design policies to meet the specific needs of the various types of informal carers aged 50+.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available