Cargando…

A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary

OBJECTIVES: Two main methods for identifying whether an individual is an informal carer are self-declaration and the use of a time diary. We analysed the level and predictors of agreement between these two methods among co-residential informal carers of adult recipients. METHODS: We used the 2014/15...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Urwin, Sean, Lau, Yiu-Shing, Grande, Gunn, Sutton, Matt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9130170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01136-8
_version_ 1784712930077442048
author Urwin, Sean
Lau, Yiu-Shing
Grande, Gunn
Sutton, Matt
author_facet Urwin, Sean
Lau, Yiu-Shing
Grande, Gunn
Sutton, Matt
author_sort Urwin, Sean
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Two main methods for identifying whether an individual is an informal carer are self-declaration and the use of a time diary. We analysed the level and predictors of agreement between these two methods among co-residential informal carers of adult recipients. METHODS: We used the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey, which is a large-scale household survey for those aged 8 years old and over. It contains an individual questionnaire for self-declaration and a time diary for activity-based identification that records all activity in 10-min slots for two 24-h periods. Our analysis: (i) assesses the degree of overlap across approaches; (ii) explores the differences in characteristics between carers identified via one approach relative to non-carers using a bivariate probit estimator; and (iii) shows what factors are associated with being identified by both approaches using two independent probit estimators. RESULTS: Out of 6301 individuals, we identified 545 carers (8.6%) by at least one method and only 104 (19.1% of 545 carers) by both methods. We found similar factors predicted caregiving using either method but the magnitudes of the effects of these factors were larger for self-declared carers. Activity-based carers who provided more activities to a dependent adult and spent more time caregiving were more likely to also self-declare. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show low levels of agreement between the two main methods used to identify informal carers. Any assessment of current caregiving research or future means to collect caregiving information should pay particular attention to the identification method as it may only relate to certain carer groups. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01136-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9130170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91301702022-05-26 A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary Urwin, Sean Lau, Yiu-Shing Grande, Gunn Sutton, Matt Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article OBJECTIVES: Two main methods for identifying whether an individual is an informal carer are self-declaration and the use of a time diary. We analysed the level and predictors of agreement between these two methods among co-residential informal carers of adult recipients. METHODS: We used the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey, which is a large-scale household survey for those aged 8 years old and over. It contains an individual questionnaire for self-declaration and a time diary for activity-based identification that records all activity in 10-min slots for two 24-h periods. Our analysis: (i) assesses the degree of overlap across approaches; (ii) explores the differences in characteristics between carers identified via one approach relative to non-carers using a bivariate probit estimator; and (iii) shows what factors are associated with being identified by both approaches using two independent probit estimators. RESULTS: Out of 6301 individuals, we identified 545 carers (8.6%) by at least one method and only 104 (19.1% of 545 carers) by both methods. We found similar factors predicted caregiving using either method but the magnitudes of the effects of these factors were larger for self-declared carers. Activity-based carers who provided more activities to a dependent adult and spent more time caregiving were more likely to also self-declare. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show low levels of agreement between the two main methods used to identify informal carers. Any assessment of current caregiving research or future means to collect caregiving information should pay particular attention to the identification method as it may only relate to certain carer groups. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01136-8. Springer International Publishing 2022-04-08 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9130170/ /pubmed/35396699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01136-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Urwin, Sean
Lau, Yiu-Shing
Grande, Gunn
Sutton, Matt
A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title_full A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title_fullStr A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title_short A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary
title_sort comparison of methods for identifying informal carers: self-declaration versus a time diary
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9130170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01136-8
work_keys_str_mv AT urwinsean acomparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT lauyiushing acomparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT grandegunn acomparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT suttonmatt acomparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT urwinsean comparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT lauyiushing comparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT grandegunn comparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary
AT suttonmatt comparisonofmethodsforidentifyinginformalcarersselfdeclarationversusatimediary