A National Examination of Caregiver Use of and Preferences for Support Services: Does Rurality Matter?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess rural–urban differences in caregiver use of and preferences for support services. Method: Using the 2015 Caregiving in the U.S. survey data (n = 1,389), we analyzed rural–urban differences by caregiver residence in use of and preferences for support services. We analyzed bivariate differences in service use and preferences, as well as in sociodemographic and caregiving relationship characteristics. We also assessed the correlates of service use using stratified ordered logistic regression models. Results: Approximately one third of all caregivers had used no supportive services, with few differences in service use and preference by location. For caregivers in both locations, having more financial strain was associated with greater use of services. Discussion: This article identifies broad needs for caregiver support across all geographic locations. Targeted efforts should be made to ensure access to supportive services accounting for unique barriers by geography.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1652-1670
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of aging and health
Volume31
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2019

Fingerprint

Caregivers
caregiver
examination
Logistic Models
caregiving
Geographic Locations
Geography
financial strain
logistics
geography
regression

Keywords

  • caregiving
  • health services
  • policy
  • rural aging
  • social support

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

A National Examination of Caregiver Use of and Preferences for Support Services : Does Rurality Matter? / Henning-Smith, Carrie E; Lahr, Megan; Casey, Michelle M.

In: Journal of aging and health, Vol. 31, No. 9, 01.10.2019, p. 1652-1670.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{52bc837d1be2419da3ee6a7be63f0361,
title = "A National Examination of Caregiver Use of and Preferences for Support Services: Does Rurality Matter?",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of this study was to assess rural–urban differences in caregiver use of and preferences for support services. Method: Using the 2015 Caregiving in the U.S. survey data (n = 1,389), we analyzed rural–urban differences by caregiver residence in use of and preferences for support services. We analyzed bivariate differences in service use and preferences, as well as in sociodemographic and caregiving relationship characteristics. We also assessed the correlates of service use using stratified ordered logistic regression models. Results: Approximately one third of all caregivers had used no supportive services, with few differences in service use and preference by location. For caregivers in both locations, having more financial strain was associated with greater use of services. Discussion: This article identifies broad needs for caregiver support across all geographic locations. Targeted efforts should be made to ensure access to supportive services accounting for unique barriers by geography.",
keywords = "caregiving, health services, policy, rural aging, social support",
author = "Henning-Smith, {Carrie E} and Megan Lahr and Casey, {Michelle M}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0898264318786569",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "1652--1670",
journal = "Journal of Aging and Health",
issn = "0898-2643",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A National Examination of Caregiver Use of and Preferences for Support Services

T2 - Does Rurality Matter?

AU - Henning-Smith, Carrie E

AU - Lahr, Megan

AU - Casey, Michelle M

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to assess rural–urban differences in caregiver use of and preferences for support services. Method: Using the 2015 Caregiving in the U.S. survey data (n = 1,389), we analyzed rural–urban differences by caregiver residence in use of and preferences for support services. We analyzed bivariate differences in service use and preferences, as well as in sociodemographic and caregiving relationship characteristics. We also assessed the correlates of service use using stratified ordered logistic regression models. Results: Approximately one third of all caregivers had used no supportive services, with few differences in service use and preference by location. For caregivers in both locations, having more financial strain was associated with greater use of services. Discussion: This article identifies broad needs for caregiver support across all geographic locations. Targeted efforts should be made to ensure access to supportive services accounting for unique barriers by geography.

AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to assess rural–urban differences in caregiver use of and preferences for support services. Method: Using the 2015 Caregiving in the U.S. survey data (n = 1,389), we analyzed rural–urban differences by caregiver residence in use of and preferences for support services. We analyzed bivariate differences in service use and preferences, as well as in sociodemographic and caregiving relationship characteristics. We also assessed the correlates of service use using stratified ordered logistic regression models. Results: Approximately one third of all caregivers had used no supportive services, with few differences in service use and preference by location. For caregivers in both locations, having more financial strain was associated with greater use of services. Discussion: This article identifies broad needs for caregiver support across all geographic locations. Targeted efforts should be made to ensure access to supportive services accounting for unique barriers by geography.

KW - caregiving

KW - health services

KW - policy

KW - rural aging

KW - social support

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049662772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049662772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0898264318786569

DO - 10.1177/0898264318786569

M3 - Article

C2 - 29978742

AN - SCOPUS:85049662772

VL - 31

SP - 1652

EP - 1670

JO - Journal of Aging and Health

JF - Journal of Aging and Health

SN - 0898-2643

IS - 9

ER -