Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research

Are informal family caregivers stigmatized differently based on their gender or employment status?: a German study on public stigma towards informal long-term caregivers of older individuals

Authors: Larissa Zwar, Matthias C. Angermeyer, Herbert Matschinger, Steffi G. Riedel-Heller, Hans-Helmut König, André Hajek

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Stigma and informal caregiving are determinants for health and wellbeing, but few studies have examined stigma towards informal caregiving. Public stigma may be expressed differently towards caregivers depending on their gender and employment status due to societal norms. Therefore, this study analyzes if there is a difference in public stigma shown by the general population toward informal caregivers of care recipients aged 65 years or older based on the observed caregiver’s gender or working status.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany. Data from 1038 adult participants from the general population in Germany were assessed with an Online-Survey. They were recruited with a quota-system based on the German micro census. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 16 vignettes describing a caregiving situation, which varied in the caregiver’s gender and working status, and care recipient’s gender and type of impairment. After reading the vignette, they were asked to provide sociodemographic information and complete three questionnaires on public stigma assessing their emotional (Emotional Reactions), behavioral (Social Distance) and cognitive reaction (Statements on informal caregivers) to the caregiver described in the vignette. Regression analyses, adjusted for sociodemographic data of the participants, were conducted.

Results

Findings indicated an association between reading about male caregivers and increased social distance, compared with reading about female caregivers. Reading about working caregivers was associated with decreased social distance and increased appreciative statements, compared to reading about non-working caregivers. Analyses after stratifying by gender of the caregiver in the vignette indicated an association between reading about female working caregivers and increased appreciative statements, compared to reading about female non-working caregivers. When stratifying by working status, an association was found between reading about male working caregivers and increased social distance, when compared to reading about female working caregivers.

Conclusions

This study’s findings indicate that gender and working status of the perceived informal caregivers are of relevance to the public stigma directed towards these caregivers. Male and non-working informal caregivers were shown more public stigma than female and working informal caregivers. Thus, interventions to reduce public stigma, in particular towards male and non-working caregivers, are recommended.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Federal Statistical Office of Germany. Bevölkerung im Wandel: Annahmen und Ergebnisse der 14. koordinierten Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany; 2019. Federal Statistical Office of Germany. Bevölkerung im Wandel: Annahmen und Ergebnisse der 14. koordinierten Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany; 2019.
2.
go back to reference World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health: World Health Organization; 2015. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health: World Health Organization; 2015.
3.
go back to reference Heuchert M, König HH, Lehnert T. Die Rolle von Präferenzen für Langzeitpflege in der sozialen Pflegeversicherung - Ergebnisse von Experteninterviews Gesundheitswesen; 2016. Heuchert M, König HH, Lehnert T. Die Rolle von Präferenzen für Langzeitpflege in der sozialen Pflegeversicherung - Ergebnisse von Experteninterviews Gesundheitswesen; 2016.
4.
go back to reference Rothgang H, Müller R. Pflegereport 2018: Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse. Berlin: BARMER; 2018. Rothgang H, Müller R. Pflegereport 2018: Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse. Berlin: BARMER; 2018.
12.
go back to reference Goffman E. Stigma über Techniken der Bewältigung beschädigter Identität - Theorie 2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; 1967. Goffman E. Stigma über Techniken der Bewältigung beschädigter Identität - Theorie 2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; 1967.
17.
go back to reference Corrigan PW, Watson AC. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2006;9(1):35–53.CrossRef Corrigan PW, Watson AC. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2006;9(1):35–53.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Cotter D. Brief: Back on Track? The Stall and Rebound in Support for Women’s New Roles in Work and Politics, 1977-2012; 2014. p. 2018. Cotter D. Brief: Back on Track? The Stall and Rebound in Support for Women’s New Roles in Work and Politics, 1977-2012; 2014. p. 2018.
30.
go back to reference Cotter D. CCF BRIEF: Patterns of Progress? Changes in Gender Ideology 1977-2016; 2018. p. 2018. Cotter D. CCF BRIEF: Patterns of Progress? Changes in Gender Ideology 1977-2016; 2018. p. 2018.
33.
go back to reference National Alliance for Caregiving, AARP Public Policy Institute. Caregiving in the US: 2015 Report. 2015. National Alliance for Caregiving, AARP Public Policy Institute. Caregiving in the US: 2015 Report. 2015.
34.
go back to reference Geyer J, Schulz E. Who cares? Die Bedeutung der informellen Pflege durch Erwerbstätige in Deutschland. DIW Wochenbericht. 2014;81(14):294–301. Geyer J, Schulz E. Who cares? Die Bedeutung der informellen Pflege durch Erwerbstätige in Deutschland. DIW Wochenbericht. 2014;81(14):294–301.
43.
go back to reference Coughlin J. Estimating the impact of caregiving and employment on well-being: Center for Health Research, Healthways, Incorporated; 2010. Coughlin J. Estimating the impact of caregiving and employment on well-being: Center for Health Research, Healthways, Incorporated; 2010.
46.
49.
go back to reference Bogardus ES. A Social Distance Scale. Sociol Methods Res. 1933;17:265–71. Bogardus ES. A Social Distance Scale. Sociol Methods Res. 1933;17:265–71.
50.
go back to reference Bogardus ES. Measuring social distances. J Appl Soc Sci. 1925;9:299–308. Bogardus ES. Measuring social distances. J Appl Soc Sci. 1925;9:299–308.
57.
go back to reference Dorin L, Turner SC, Beckmann L, große Schlarmann J, Faatz A, Metzing S, et al. Which need characteristics influence healthcare service utilization in home care arrangements in Germany? BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:233.CrossRef Dorin L, Turner SC, Beckmann L, große Schlarmann J, Faatz A, Metzing S, et al. Which need characteristics influence healthcare service utilization in home care arrangements in Germany? BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:233.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Bornstein S. The law of gender steretotyping and the work-family conflicts of men. Hastings LJ. 2011;63(5):1297–344. Bornstein S. The law of gender steretotyping and the work-family conflicts of men. Hastings LJ. 2011;63(5):1297–344.
69.
go back to reference Garcia KK. The gender bind: men as inauthentic caregivers. Duke J Gender L & Pol'y. 2012;20:1. Garcia KK. The gender bind: men as inauthentic caregivers. Duke J Gender L & Pol'y. 2012;20:1.
70.
Metadata
Title
Are informal family caregivers stigmatized differently based on their gender or employment status?: a German study on public stigma towards informal long-term caregivers of older individuals
Authors
Larissa Zwar
Matthias C. Angermeyer
Herbert Matschinger
Steffi G. Riedel-Heller
Hans-Helmut König
André Hajek
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11955-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Public Health 1/2021 Go to the issue