ArticleSSM - population health2025
Effect of family caregiving on depression outcome among older European adults.
Article in SSM - population health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most caregiver health studies rely on observational data and traditional regression methods, which fail to account for time-varying confounding, limiting causal inference. This analysis uses inverse probability weighting (IPW) to appropriately account for time-varying confounding in caregiving-depression relationship. Methods: Using seven waves (2004-2019) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, we estimated the effect of caregiving on probable depression (having 4+ symptoms) comparing daily and some caregiving to no caregiving. We accounted for censoring and potential measured confounding by time-fixed covariates (gender, number of children, country, and education) and time-varying covariates (age, employment, marital status, income, physical limitations, psychiatric medication, receiving help, previous caregiving, and previous depression) using IPCW and IPTW. The product of the two weights was applied to a marginal structural model to obtain the causal estimand on the prevalence difference scale. Confidence intervals were derived from bootstrapping. Results: Among 36 346 participants and 67 800 person-waves, compared to no caregiving in the last year, daily caregiving was associated with a 6.7 percentage point (95 % CI: 4.8 %, 8.6 %) increase in the prevalence of probable depression, after accounting for time-fixed and time-varying covariates. Some caregiving was not associated with probable depression (PD = 0.5, 95 % CI = -0.8 %, 1.8 %). Conclusions: Our results support existing findings that high levels of caregiving may increase the prevalence of probable depression, while lower levels of caregiving do not. Accurate documentation of the relationship between caregiving and health outcomes is foundational in creating evidence-based policies to support healthy aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.