4.3 Article

Informal Caregiving Patterns in Korea and European Countries: A Cross-National Comparison

期刊

ASIAN NURSING RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 19-26

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.02.002

关键词

cross-cultural comparison; Europe; family caregivers; Korea

类别

资金

  1. European Commission [QLK6-CT-2001-00360, RII-CT-2006-062193, CIT5-CT-2005-028857]
  2. United States National Institute on Aging [U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01, OGHA 04-064, R21 AG025169]
  3. Chung-Ang University
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea
  5. Korean Government [NRF-2011-0011875]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This ecological study examined demographic and institutional differences in informal caregiving. We conducted a cross-national study about the characteristics of informal caregivers in 12 European countries and Korea. Methods: Data were collected from individuals aged 50 years and older participating in the 2004/2005 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe and the 2006 Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing. We examined the associations between informal caregiving and macrolevel characteristics (gross domestic product, total fertility rates, labor force participation rates, level of women's empowerment, long-term care resources). Results: Korea and some southern European countries, notably Spain and Italy, had high percentages of women, homemakers, coresidents, and spouses in informal caregiving roles. In contrast, Northern European countries such as Denmark and Sweden had high proportions of employed informal caregivers. Lower female labor force participation was associated with higher proportions of women caregivers. A higher proportion of women caregivers in the population were also associated with a lower national gross domestic product per capita. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that several contextual and institutional variables are associated with the proportion of women participating in caregiving. Copyright (C) 2012, Korean Society of Nursing Science. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据