Next Article in Journal
Cumulative Risk and Externalizing Behaviors during Infancy in a Predominantly Latine Sample
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Cohesion and Productivity Norms in Performance and Social Effectiveness of Work Groups and Informal Subgroups
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Association of Caregivers’ Socio-Economic Conditions with Family Caregiving Norms: Evidence from China

School of Economics, Hiroshima University, 1-2-1 Kagamiyama, Higashihiroshima 7398525, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13(5), 362; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050362
Received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 22 April 2023 / Accepted: 24 April 2023 / Published: 26 April 2023

Abstract

:
Similar to her neighboring country, Japan, China faces significant difficulties in providing long-term care to the elderly. Female household members who traditionally provided necessary caregiving are no longer available as much as in the past due to the demographic and socioeconomic changes over the past few decades. Against this backdrop, we investigated how socioeconomic factors affect the perception of family caregiving norms in China, using an international comparative household dataset that allowed us to compare China with Japan, the latter being extensively investigated. We used ordered probit regression to estimate the model equation. Our results show that rural residency, household assets, and government dependency are positively associated with the perception of care. A notable difference from the Japanese results is that rural residents have a rather positive perception of family caregiving norms. Furthermore, urban–rural subsample analyses revealed that women in rural areas perceive caregiving negatively.

1. Introduction

A recent study in Japan found that age, education, full-time employment, marriage, and the number of children of potential caregivers are negatively associated with the attitude of family caregiving [1]. The results imply that changes in demographic and socioeconomic conditions, women’s participation in the formal labor market, and the influence of the global diffusion process act as agents of change to traditional family caregiving norms. This study [1] motivated us to investigate the perception of traditional caregiving norms in light of the changing demographic and socio-economic conditions in China. China, which is a neighboring country of Japan, shares commonalities in family caregiving values, practices, and challenges. For example, both Japan and China follow perceptions of family caregiving that are deeply rooted in tradition [2], where the influence of filial piety requires children to take care of elderly family members and rely less on institutional care [3,4]. However, the way socioeconomic and demographic shifts have impacted China has some unique characteristics, and therefore, its impact on societal values must be studied separately and rigorously [5,6,7,8,9]. Furthermore, the rural–urban dimension is particularly important to study in China due to the difference in socio-economic conditions, cultural coherence, and institutional structures observed during the last couple of decades [10]. Therefore, a comprehensive study of the perception of caregiving in China will allow people to understand the contrasting influence of traditional filial piety on caregiving and the actual perception of family caregiving under changing demographic and socio-economic conditions.
Family caregiving is an important source of elderly care not only due to the influence of culture but also due to the lack of institutional care and its affordability at the mass level in China [11]. Not very surprisingly, China depends heavily on family caregivers to provide daily and instrumental elderly care [12]. Moreover, eldercare recipients primarily prefer family members as their caregivers due to cultural and comfort issues [13]. Expectations of both caregivers and care recipients are largely dominated by their filial relationship [3,4]. However, the traditional supply of family care is facing increasing challenges due to the changing family structure; increasing employment of women, who are the main providers of family care; increasing socio-economic status; and reducing the number of eligible family members [14,15,16,17,18]. Female household members, who traditionally provided the necessary family care [19], are no longer available as much as in the past due to the demographic and socio-economic changes over the past few decades [20,21,22]. Socio-economic changes have also influenced caregivers’ physical and psychological burdens associated with caregiving responsibilities, which eventually have impacted caregivers’ perception of caregiving norms [23,24,25,26].
The existing literature focuses mainly on the influence of tradition and culture on family caregiving [27,28,29], the provision of eldercare by institutional providers and its barriers [30,31,32,33], and stress and burden associated with family caregiving [34,35,36]. However, there is a lack of study on how the changes in socio-economic conditions are associated with caregivers’ attitudes towards family caregiving norms. The massive socio-economic development over the last couple of decades, combined with a rapidly aging population and the implementation of the one-child policy, has placed China in a critical stage where traditional caregiving norms have been severely impacted, which could have severe consequences for elderly care in the future. Thus, the reasons behind developing negative attitudes towards family caregiving norms must be investigated and understood from the viewpoint of caregivers’ needs and burdens.
This study examines the association between various demographic and socio-economic factors and the Chinese perception of family caregiving norms with a particular focus on differentiating between rural and urban areas. This study contributes to the literature in at least three ways. First, it quantitatively demonstrates how various demographic and socioeconomic conditions are associated with the perceptions of family caregiving norms in China. Second, using the same series of datasets, this study produced outputs comparable to those of Japan, which shares similar issues with China. Third, this study uniquely covers rural–urban differences using nationwide survey data.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Data

This study used data from the Osaka University’s Preference Parameters Study, an international comparative household survey. The panel survey distributed a nearly identical questionnaire in four countries, including China and Japan. We used data from the 2013 wave, which provided necessary information for comparison. The Chinese survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with individuals and households in six major cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan, and Shenyang—and the surrounding rural areas from 17 January 2013 to 1 February 2013. The target respondents were adults aged 20–69 years old. The survey used multistage sampling and allocation methods. Specifically, the first study set predicted the number of respondents based on the target population in each district. Subsequently, an area in each district was selected randomly. Finally, the potential participants were selected from families using the Kish grid method [37]. As the focus was on major Chinese cities, the data do not represent the entire nation, but they include significant parts of the country. There were two separate datasets—one each for rural and urban areas. We appended the two datasets to perform relevant analysis. We excluded 58 respondents with missing data on socioeconomic and demographic variables. The final sample size was 1260, accounting for approximately 96% of valid respondents out of a total of 1318 respondents.

2.2. Variables

The dependent variable was perception of family caregiving norms. To quantify this, we used the following question: “Child(ren) should take care of their parents when they require long-term care”. Respondents had the options to answer this question on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being completely disagree and 5 being completely agree.
The explanatory variables of this study were grouped into five categories. The first group includes demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as sex, age, level of education level, religious level, employment status, marital status, and some important interaction terms such as sex with age and sex with full-time employment. The second group includes variables related to potential caregivers, such as the number of siblings, the number of sons, and the number of daughters. The third group includes variables related to respondents’ financial conditions, such as the logs of household annual income and household financial assets. The fourth group includes the financial planning for old age, such as the proportion of living expenses that the respondents will be able to cover with social security income after retirement, the perception of the government’s role in taking care of financially dependent people, having savings for living expenses, and having savings for long-term care. The fifth group includes parental-related variables, such as whether the respondents received an inheritance or monetary transfers in excess of CNY 100,000 from their parents, the level of education of the parents, whether one parent requires care, and whether both parents require care. Most of our explanatory variables are comparable to those of Fukuda [1] and Khan et al. [38]. Table 1 presents the definitions of all the variables.

2.3. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics of the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 2. The statistics revealed that respondents were mostly in favor of family caregiving norms (mean 4.11, SD = 74), indicating strong filial piety norms embedded in the Chinese culture. Approximately 35.6% of the sample lived in rural areas, and 50% of the respondents were female, with an average age of 44 years. On average, the respondents had been educated for 10.3 years. In addition, 2.2% of the respondents were unemployed, and 81% were married. The respondents had on average two siblings and fewer than one son or daughter. Furthermore, the average household income and assets were more than CNY 1,600,000 and CNY 8,000,000, respectively. Respondents expected that after they retired, they could cover 23.8% of their living expenses using their social security income. Moreover, 77.4% of respondents believed that the government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves financially. With regard to savings, 35.7% had saved for the living expenses during old age, and 24.6% had saved for nursing and other expenses in long-term care. Additionally, 7.8% of respondents had received an inheritance worth more than CNY 100,000 from their parents. The average number of years of education for the respondents’ parents was 6.5 years. Finally, 20.6% of the respondents reported that one parent required long-term care, whereas 11% stated that both parents needed caregiving.
We observed whether perception of family caregiving norms varies with individuals’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, as presented in Table 3 and Table 4 below.
Caregiving perceptions according to age group are presented in Table 3. Age is known to be the best indicator of a person’s behavior in various social contexts. However, the ANOVA test in our study showed that age was not significantly associated with the caregiving perception in China. This result indicates that age, sometimes considered the only predictor, might not explain certain relationships depending on the stance of the subject area.
There was a significant disparity between rural and urban areas in the perception of family caregiving norms, as presented in Table 4. People living in rural areas have a more positive perception of caregiving norms than those in urban areas do. The noteworthy difference can be attributed to fewer healthcare services vis-à-vis a greater need for care in rural areas, the higher influence of filial piety norms among the residents of rural areas than among those in urban areas, and other sociocultural factors that shape the household structure in both. By contrast, other categories such as gender, marital status, and employment status did not affect respondents’ attitudes toward long-term care. This implies that these variables might not be strong predictors of certain correlations and could be combined with other demographic and socioeconomic variables to demonstrate a joint effect.

2.4. Methods

We investigated the association between respondents’ perceptions of family caregiving norms and various socioeconomic and demographic attributes using Equation (1). As the main dependent variable is ordinal, we conducted an ordered probit regression to estimate the equation. Ordered probit model is a generalization of probit model and applicable where the dependent variable has more than two outcomes of ordinal in nature. The ordered probit model appropriately fits ordered data, preserving the ordering of response options when making no assumption of the interval distance between options [39].
Y i = f ( , X i ,   ε i )
where Y i is the perception of the family caregiving norms of the i th respondent, X is the vector of respondents’ socio-economic and demographic characteristics and some interaction terms, and ε is the error term.
With several predictor variables in the model, the probability that our model could suffer from multicollinearity was high. This is because the model comprises variables that might reinforce one another; for example, higher years of education may lead to higher household assets or income or vice versa. We conducted correlation and multicollinearity tests (available upon request) to ensure that this inter-correlation did not persist in our model. The correlation matrix shows a weak relationship between the relative movements of the two variables across all the models (substantially lower than 0.70). Furthermore, the variance inflation factor values of all the explanatory variables were less than 10, indicating the absence of multicollinearity in all models.
Five models were created for Equation (1), with each model adding distinct control variables, which are represented in models 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 below.
P e r c e p t i o n   o f   f a m i l y   c a r e g i v i n g   n o r m i = β 0   + β 1 r u r a l i + β 2 f e m a l e i + β 3 a g e i + β 4 a g e _ s q i + β 5 y e a r s _ o f _ e d u c a t i o n i + β 6 u n e m p l o y e d i + β 7 m a r r i e d i + β 8 c r o s s _ f e m & a g e s q u a r e d i + ε i
P e r c e p t i o n   o f   f a m i l y   c a r e g i v i n g   n o r m i = β 0   + β 1 r u r a l i + β 2 f e m a l e i + β 3 a g e i + β 4 a g e _ s q i + β 5 y e a r s _ o f _ e d u c a t i o n i   + β 6 u n e m p l o y e d i   + β 7 m a r r i e d i   + β 8 c r o s s _ f e m & a g e s q u a r e d i + β 9 n b _ s i b l i n g s i + β 10 n b _ s o n s i + β 11 n b _ d a u g h t e r s i + ε i
P e r c e p t i o n   o f   f a m i l y   c a r e g i v i n g   n o r m i = β 0   + β 1 r u r a l i + β 2 f e m a l e i + β 3 a g e i + β 4 a g e _ s q i + β 5 y e a r s _ o f _ e d u c a t i o n i + β 6 u n e m p l o y e d i + β 7 m a r r i e d i + β 8 c r o s s _ f e m & a g e s q u a r e d i + β 9 n b _ s i b l i n g s i + β 10 n b _ s o n s i + β 11 n b _ d a u g h t e r s i   + β 12 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   i n c o m e i +   β 13 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   a s s e t i + ε i
P e r c e p t i o n   o f   f a m i l y   c a r e g i v i n g   n o r m i = β 0   + β 1 r u r a l i + β 2 f e m a l e i + β 3 a g e i + β 4 a g e _ s q i + β 5 y e a r s _ o f _ e d u c a t i o n i + β 6 u n e m p l o y e d i + β 7 m a r r i e d i   +   β 8 c r o s s _ f e m & a g e s q u a r e d i + β 11 n b _ s i b l i n g s i + β 12 n b _ s o n s i + β 13 n b _ d a u g h t e r s i +   β 12 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   i n c o m e i + β 13 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   a s s e t i +   β 14 s o c i a l _ s e c u r i t y i + β 15 g v t _ r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i + β 16 s a v e _ r e t i r e i + β 17 s a v e _ l t c i + ε i  
P e r c e p t i o n   o f   f a m i l y   c a r e g i v i n g   n o r m i = β 0 + β 1 r u r a l i + β 2 f e m a l e i + β 3 a g e i + β 4 a g e _ s q i + β 5 y e a r s _ o f _ e d u c a t i o n i + β 6 u n e m p l o y e d i + β 7 m a r r i e d i   +   β 8 c r o s s _ f e m & a g e s q u a r e d i + β 9 n b _ s i b l i n g s i + β 10 n b _ s o n s i + β 11 n b _ d a u g h t e r s i   + β 12 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   i n c o m e i + β 13 log o f   h o u s e h o l d   a s s e t i +   β 14 s o c i a l _ s e c u r i t y i + β 15 g v t _ r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i + β 16 s a v e _ r e t i r e i + β 17 s a v e _ l t c i + β 18 p a r e n t s _ i n h e r i t a n c e i + β 19 p a r e n t s _ e d u c i + β 20 o n e _ p a r e n t c a r e i + β 21 b o t h _ p a r e n t c a r e i + ε i
Moreover, we conducted a subsample analysis by area (rural/urban) and gender, considering the regional gap.

3. Results

The full-sample regression results for perceptions of family caregiving norms are presented in Table 5. Starting with model 1, which includes basic demographic variables as control variables, certain variables were added in other models to understand the robustness of results and associations of the added variables. It is important to note that significant variables remain consistent in all models. The results show that the rural variable has a significantly positive association with family caregiving norms in all models. Moreover, household assets, government dependency, and when one parent requires care have significantly positive associations when social security has a significantly negative association with family caregiving norms. The regression results imply that perception towards family caregiving is still positively nurtured among respondents of rural areas more than their urban counterparts. A similar perception was also observed among respondents who have higher assets, are in favor of government support for long-term care, rely less on social security, and have one parent that requires care.
Since residency in rural and urban area is found to be an important consideration for forming perception towards family caregiving, we conducted a sub-sample analysis between residents of urban and rural areas. The results of the sub-sample analysis are presented in Table 6. Some variables that were not significantly associated with family caregiving attitude in full-sample analysis became significant in sub-sample analysis. The regression results show that females have a negative perception when the factors of being unemployed, having more household assets, having government support, and when one parent requires care have significantly positive associations with the traditional family caregiving norms. On the other hand, in urban areas, respondents who are married and dependent on government support have a significantly positive association when household assets and dependency on the social security have a significantly negative association with the traditional family caregiving norms.
To investigate the issue further, we have conducted sub-sample analysis between males and females of urban and rural areas. The results of the sub-sample analysis by region and gender are presented in Table 7. The results show that females in the rural areas who have more household assets, are dependent on government support, received family inheritance, and have one parent that requires care have positive associations with the traditional family caregiving norms. On the other hand, females in the urban areas, who are middle aged, and have = low education have negative associations when the factors of being unemployed, requiring government support for long-term care, and having one parent that requires care have positive associations with the traditional family caregiving norms. For rural males, positive perceptions are found among those who have higher education, are married, depend less on social security, are in favor of government support, have savings for long-term care, and did not receive family inheritance. Positive perception about traditional family caregiving is observed among rural males whose who have fewer household assets, are in favor of government support for long-term care, do not have savings for long-term care, and have parents who do not need care.

4. Discussion

The traditional family caregiving norms require family members, particularly female members, to take care for elderly family members [2,3,4,12]. However, changes in socio-economic conditions and demographic shifts are often found to impact the perception of traditional caregiving norms [1,14,15,16,17]. With this background, we investigated the association between demographic and socio-economic conditions and family caregiving norms in China. Moreover, we placed a special emphasis on family caregiving norms in rural and urban areas. In support of our hypothesis, the results of the study show that demographic and socio-economic factors have significant association with the traditional family caregiving norms. Respondents who have higher assets and do not rely much on social security are positive about family caregiving norms. This is inconsistent with the study of Fukuda et al. [1] and Khan et al. [38] that found no association of household assets and social security with family caregiving norms in Japan. Higher household assets and lower dependence on social security are indicators of economic solvency, too, which could reduce caregiving burden and stress and could also act as a deterrent for women to seek outside employment. Previous studies found that those in the lower-economic-capacity group could not afford the desired level of formal care and can therefore avoid providing informal family care [39,40,41,42]. However, respondents who are in favor of government support for the long-term care have a positive perception of the traditional family caregiving norms, which is consistent with previous studies [1,38]. This positive perception could emerge from the possibility that government support could be used for formal caregiving, which will complement the need for informal caregiving [43,44,45,46].
Regarding the rural–urban differences in familial caregiving, our study shows that people in rural areas have strong filial piety about caregiving. This is not the case with urban areas. This finding about the rural areas is consistent with that of Cong and Silverstein [47]. Furthermore, unlike filial traditions, rural women negatively perceive family caregiving norms, especially if they are employed and not wealthy. This implies that eldercare in rural areas may no longer rely on the traditional notion of female family members being the main family caregivers [48]. Similarly, middle-aged women of urban areas with higher education and who are employed are likely to have a negative perception towards traditional family caregiving. It seems that modernization has caused a reconstruction of the traditional perspective of filial piety [49,50].
These findings have several implications for policy. First, considering that government dependency leads to positive perceptions of family caregiving norms in rural areas, the government may support the valuable elderly in rural areas. This supports the argument of Li et al. [10] and Zhang [51], who claimed that rural residents have more difficulty accessing formal care than do urban residents. Second, the government may consider introducing a comprehensive long-term care system because traditional family caregivers negatively perceive family caregiving norms.
Nonetheless, this study had some limitations. First, the dataset we used does not completely represent China. As indicated in the Data section, the survey collected data from six major cities and the surrounding rural areas. Thus, there is room for improvement in terms of representativeness. Future studies may include more cities and towns with larger sample sizes. Thus, the representativeness of the results could be improved. Second, the dataset we used was prepared in 2013 and is relatively old. Hence, we may not have captured the latest trends in China. Third, there are no data to compare socio-economic changes in rural and urban areas to pinpoint why rural women have a negative perception compared to their urban counterparts. Finally, we have explained family caregiving norms using demographic and socio-economic aspects. There may be other issues that also influence perception of family caregiving norms, such as caregivers’ burden, stress, relationship with care recipients, and others. We were unable to use these variables due to the data limitations. Future studies should include all important aspects of family caregiving norms to provide a more comprehensive finding.

5. Conclusions

This study sheds light on the perceptions of family caregiving norms in China. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first quantitative study to investigate the perceptions of family caregiving norms in China, with a view comparable to that of neighboring Japan. This study quantitatively demonstrates how various demographic and socioeconomic conditions are associated with the perceptions of family caregiving norms in China. Finally, this study uniquely covered the aspect of rural–urban differences. The study revealed that rural residency, household assets, and government dependency positively impact the perception of care in China. A notable difference from the Japanese results was that Chinese women had a rather negative perception of family caregiving norms. Furthermore, urban–rural subsample analyses revealed that women in rural areas perceive caregiving negatively.
The findings of this study have implications for policymakers, government officials, and researchers. Family caregiving dynamics need to be studied and understood in a traditional-value-based country such as China due to ongoing changes in the socio-economic conditions of potential caregivers. The results clearly show the changing perception of family caregiving norms, particularly among rural women, suggesting a more negative perception of family caregiving. The government and other policymakers must respond to this transformation and provide more support to the elderly. Alternatively, the government could incorporate technologies and instruments supporting long-term care that are easily accessible so that the caregiving burden is eased.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto), H.N. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); methodology, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto), H.N., M.S.R.K. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); software, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto) and H.N.; validation, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto), H.N. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); formal analysis, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto), H.N., M.S.R.K. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); investigation, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto) and H.N.; resources, Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); data curation, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto) and H.N.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.K. (Yu Kuramoto) and H.N.; writing—review and editing, M.S.R.K. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); visualization, M.S.R.K. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); supervision, Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); project administration, Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya); funding acquisition, M.S.R.K. and Y.K. (Yoshihiko Kadoya). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI, grant numbers JP19K13739, JP19K13684, JP23H00837, and JP23K12503. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, and decision to publish.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

This research utilized the microdata from the Preference Parameters Study of Osaka University’s 21st Century COE Program “Behavioral Macro-Dynamics Based on Surveys and Experiments”, its Global COE project “Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Dynamics”, and JSPS KAKENHI 15H05728 “Behavioral-Economic Analysis of Long-Run Stagnation”. The authors acknowledge the contributors to the program/projects: Yoshiro Tsutsui, Fumio Ohtake, and Shinsuke Ikeda. Finally, the authors thank and acknowledge the suggestions and support from Trinh Xuan Thi Nguyen, Sumeet Lal, Takuya Katauke, and Sayaka Fukuda.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fukuda, S.; Lal, S.; Katauke, T.; Khan, M.S.R.; Kadoya, Y. Impact of changing socio-economic conditions on family caregiving norms: Evidence from Japan. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Long, S.O.; Campbell, R.; Nishimura, C. Does it matter who cares? A Comparison of Daughters versus Daughters-in-Law in Japanese elder Care. Soc. Sci. Jpn J. 2009, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Watanabe, S.; Kodama, S.; Hanabusa, H. Longevity and elderly care: Lessons from Japan. Glob. Health J. 2018, 2, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, L.; Zhou, Y.; Fang, X.; Qu, G. Care burden on family caregivers of patients with dementia and affecting factors in China: A systematic review. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 1004552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huang, X. Chinese Society. Available online: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0086.xml (accessed on 9 April 2023).
  6. Daatland, S.O.; Lowenstein, A. Intergenerational solidarity and the family–welfare state balance. Eur. J. Ageing 2005, 2, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Levande, D.I.; Herrick, J.M.; Sung, K. Eldercare in the United States and South Korea: Balancing family and community support. J. Fam. Issues 2000, 21, 632–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, T.; Sun, L. Pension reform in China. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2016, 28, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, H.; Zhang, Z. Long-term care services and insurance system in China: An evolutionary game analysis. Sustainability 2022, 15, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Chen, K. Rural-urban differences in the long-term care of the disabled elderly in China. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ting, G.; Woo, J. Elder care: Is legislation of family responsibility the solution? Asian J. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2009, 4, 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xiao, L.; Wang, J.; He, G.; De Bellis, A.; Verbeeck, J.; Kyriazopoulos, H. Family caregiver challenges in dementia care in Australia and China: A critical perspective. BMC Geriatr. 2014, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Krings, M.; van Wijngaarden, J.; Yuan, S.; Huijsman, R. China’s elder care policies 1994–2020: A narrative document analysis. Int. J. Env. Res Public Health 2022, 19, 6141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Redfoot, D.; Feinberg, L.; Houser, A. The Aging of the Baby Boom and the Growing Care Gap: A Look at Future Declines in the Availability of Family Caregivers; AARP Public Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Available online: https://www.aarp.org/home-family/caregiving/info-08-2013/the-aging-of-the-baby-boomand-the-growing-care-gap-AARP-ppi-ltc.html (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  15. de Meijer, C.; Koopmanschap, M.; D’Uva, T.B.; van Doorslaer, E. Determinants of long-term care spending: Age, time to death or disability? J. Health Econ. 2011, 30, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ku, L.-J.E.; Liu, L.-F.; Wen, M.-J. Trends and determinants of informal and formal caregiving in the community for disabled elderly people in Taiwan. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2013, 56, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, F.; Fang, X.; Gao, J.; Ding, H.; Wang, C.; Xie, C.; Yang, Y.; Jin, C. Determinants of formal care use and expenses among in-home elderly in Jing’an district, Shanghai, China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rogero-Garcia, J. Distribution of formal and informal home care for people older than 64 years in Spain 2003. Rev. Esp. Salud. Publ. 2009, 83, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davis, D. Settling accounts: The intergenerational contract in an age of reform. In Chinese Families in the Post-Mao Era; Davis, D., Harrell, S., Eds.; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 307–334. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wu, B.; Carter, M.W.; Goins, R.T.; Cheng, C. Emerging services for community-based long-term care in Urban China: A systematic analysis of Shanghai’s community-based agencies. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2005, 17, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kan, G. Reading Changes in Family Support Through Regional Development in China. Reg. Res. Inst. Publ. Work. Pap. 2011, 148. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hung, J. Smart elderly care services in China: Challenges, progress, and policy development. Sustainability 2022, 15, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Swinkels, J.; Tilburg, T.V.; Verbakel, E.; Broese van Groenou, M. Explaining the gender gap in the caregiving burden of partner caregivers. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2019, 74, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wong, D.F.K.; Ng, T.K.; Zhuang, X.Y. Caregiving burden and psychological distress in Chinese spousal caregivers: Gender difference in the moderating role of positive aspects of caregiving. Aging Ment. Health. 2019, 23, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Anderson, J.G.; Eppes, A.; O’Dwyer, S.T. ‘Like Death is Near’: Expressions of suicidal and homicidal ideation in the blog posts of family caregivers of people with dementia. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kong, J.W.; Park, J.Y. Understanding suicide risk in people with dementia and family caregivers in Korea: A systematic review. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhang, L.; Han, Y.; Ma, Y.; Xu, Z.; Fang, Y. Eastern perspectives on roles, responsibilities and filial piety: A case study. Nurs. Ethics 2021, 28, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, X.; Clarke, C.L.; Rhynas, S.J. What is the meaning of filial piety for people with dementia and their family caregivers in China under the current social transitions? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Dementia 2019, 18, 2620–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lo, M.; Russell, C. Family care: An exploratory study of experience and expectations among older Chinese immigrants in Australia. Contemp. Nurs. 2007, 25, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tu, J.; Liao, J. Primary care providers’ perceptions and experiences of family-centered care for older adults: A qualitative study of community-based diabetes management in China. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bao, J.; Zhou, L.; Liu, G.; Tang, J.; Lu, X.; Cheng, C.; Jin, Y.; Bai, J. Current state of care for the elderly in China in the context of an aging population. Biosci. Trends. 2022, 16, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Z.; Xing, Y.; Yan, W.; Sun, X.; Zhang, X.; Huang, S.; Li, L. Effects of individual, family and community factors on the willingness of institutional elder care: A cross-sectional survey of the elderly in China. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e032478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, W.; Jingwei, H.A.; Fang, L.; Mossialos, E. Financing institutional long-term care for the elderly in China: A policy evaluation of new models. Health Policy Plan 2016, 31, 1391–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, J.; Lu, N.; Lou, V.W.Q. Care Tasks in the Stress Process for Family Caregivers in Urban China. Clin. Gerontol. 2017, 40, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lu, N.; Liu, J.; Lou, V.W. Caring for frail elders with musculoskeletal conditions and family caregivers’ subjective well-being: The role of multidimensional caregiver burden. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2015, 61, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chan, C.L.; Chui, E.W. Association between cultural factors and the caregiving burden for Chinese spousal caregivers of frail elderly in Hong Kong. Aging Ment. Health 2011, 15, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lauries, H. Kish Grid. In Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods; Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A., Liao, T., Eds.; SAGE: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, M.S.R.; Watanapongvanich, S.; Kadoya, Y. Family caregiving attitudes: Implications for post-pandemic eldercare in Japan. Gerontol. Soc. 2021, 43, Ia. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liddell, T.; Kruschke, J. Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 79, 328–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schmidt, A.E. Analyzing the importance of older people’s resources for the use of home care in a cash-for-care scheme: Evidence from Vienna. Health Soc. Care Commun. 2017, 25, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bruhn, J.; Rebach, H. Socioeconomic Status and Caregiving. The Sociology of Caregiving (Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice); Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 79–95. [Google Scholar]
  42. André, S.; Cunha, M.; Martins, M.; Rodrigues, V. The informal caregiver’s socioeconomic prism and its implications on state of mind. Atten. Prim. 2014, 46, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bolin, K.; Lindgren, B.; Lundborg, P. Informal and formal care among single-living elderly in Europe. Health Econ. 2008, 17, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bonsang, E. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? J. Health. Econ. 2009, 28, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saraceno, C.; Keck, W. Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? Eur. Soc. 2010, 12, 675–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Denton, M. The linkages between informal and formal care of the elderly. Can. J. Aging. 2010, 16, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cong, Z.; Silverstein, M. Intergenerational exchange between parents and migrant and non-migrant sons in rural China. J. Marriage Fam. 2011, 73, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, X.; Giles, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y. Gender patterns of eldercare in China. Fem. Econ. 2018, 24, 54–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, L. Elderly residents’ perspectives on filial piety and institutionalization in Shanghai. J. Intergen. Relat. 2011, 9, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhan, H.J.; Montgomery, R.J.V. Gender and elder care in China: The influence of filial piety and structural constraints. Gend. Soc. 2003, 17, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, L.; Zeng, Y.; Wang, L.; Fang, Y. Urban-rural differences in long-term care service status and needs among home-based elderly people in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020, 17, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Variable definitions.
Table 1. Variable definitions.
VariablesDefinition
Perception of family caregiving norms (dummy)Child(ren) should take care of their parents when they require long-term care.
(1 = completely disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = can’t say which, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = completely agree)
Rural (dummy)1 = living in a rural area, 0 = living in an urban area
Female (dummy)1 = female, 0 = male
AgeAge
Age_squaredAge squared
Years of educationYears of education
Unemployed (dummy)1 = not employed, 0 = employed
Married (dummy)1 = married, 0 = not married
Number of siblingsNumber of siblings
Number of sonsNumber of sons
Number of daughtersNumber of daughters
Log of household incomeNatural log of annual household income
Log of household assetNatural log of household financial assets
Social securityThe proportion of living expenses to cover using social security income after retirement
Government dependency (dummy)It is the government’s responsibility to take care of the elderly financially.
(1 = completely agree/agree, 0 = can’t say which/somewhat disagree/completely disagree)
Savings_retire (dummy)1 = have retirement savings, 0 = no savings
Savings_ltc (dummy)1 = have savings for long-term care, 0 = no savings
Inheritance from parents (dummy)1 = have received an inheritance or monetary transfer of more than CNY 100,000 from their parents, 0 = no inheritance
Parents’ years of education Average years of education of parents
Caring for one parent (dummy)1 = either parent requires care, 0 = otherwise
Caring for both parents (dummy)1 = both parents require care, 0 = otherwise
Cross_fem&age squaredAn interaction term between women and age squared
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the dependent and other control variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the dependent and other control variables.
Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
Dependent Variable
Perception of family caregiving norms4.10790.742105
Control Variables
Rural0.35555560.47887101
Female0.4976190.50019301
Age 43.6222213.67572074
Age_squared2089.7751223.9364005476
Years of education10.314293.398774018
Unemployed0.02222220.14746401
Married0.80952380.39283301
Number of siblings1.8920631.58460609
Number of sons0.61746030.6498104
Number of daughters0.50873020.66746904
Household income (CNY)16,75,79512,500,00010,0001 × 108
Log of household income11.276341.1248139.2103418.42068
Household assets (CNY)8,093,49027,100,00001 × 108
Log of household assets10.168684.458747018.42068
Social security0.2383730.24219700.95
Government dependency0.77380950.4185301
Savings_retire0.35714290.47934801
Savings_ltc0.24603170.43086801
Inheritance from parents0.07777780.26792801
Parents’ years of education6.507543.743692016
Caring for one parent0.20634920.40484501
Caring for both parents0.10952380.31241901
Cross_fem&age squared1064.4041372.75605329
Observations1260
Table 3. Perception of family caregiving norms by age group.
Table 3. Perception of family caregiving norms by age group.
Perceptions of Family Caregiving NormsAge Total
Less than or Equal to 4041–5051–60Greater than 60
110012
17.00%0.00%0.00%52.00%16.00%
21262323
2.09%2.44%0.81%1.55%1.83%
3101314231205
417.63%12.60%16.94%16.06%16.27%
5291133112101637
Total50.79%54.07%45.16%52.33%50.56%
168769257393
F-statisticsF = 1.56
Table 4. Perception of family caregiving norms by other demographic characteristics.
Table 4. Perception of family caregiving norms by other demographic characteristics.
Perception of Family Caregiving NormSexUnemployedMarriedAreaTotal
MaleFemaleYesNoYesNoRuralUrban
1110220202
16.00%16.00%0.00%0.16%0.20%0.00%0.45%0.00%0.16%
2121102319414923
1.90%1.75%0.00%1.87%1.86%1.67%3.13%1.11%1.83%
39411142011604547158205
14.85%17.70%14.29%16.31%15.69%18.75%10.49%19.46%16.27%
431732012625509128204433637
50.08%51.04%42.86%50.73%49.90%53.33%45.54%53.33%50.56%
52091841238133063181212393
33.02%29.35%42.86%30.93%32.35%26.25%40.40%26.11%31.19%
Total63362728123210202404488121260
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Mean differencet = 1.4947t = −1.2823t = −1.5385t = −4.1217 ***
Note: The first and second lines of each row indicate the number and their percentages, respectively. The symbol *** indicates p < 0.01.
Table 5. Full-sample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms with rural residency and other control variables.
Table 5. Full-sample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms with rural residency and other control variables.
VariablesDependent Variable: Perception of Family Caregiving Norm
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
Rural0.3084 ***0.2923 ***0.3033 ***0.2664 ***0.2173 **
(0.0825)(0.0875)(0.0874)(0.0906)(0.0955)
Female−0.0410−0.0464−0.0417−0.0518−0.0561
(0.1238)(0.1237)(0.1242)(0.1268)(0.1268)
Age0.00490.00260.00360.00970.0051
(0.0187)(0.0197)(0.0197)(0.0199)(0.0201)
Age_squared−0.00000.0000−0.0000−0.0001−0.0000
(0.0002)(0.0002)(0.0002)(0.0002)(0.0002)
Education years0.00430.00610.00590.00470.0096
(0.0125)(0.0125)(0.0125)(0.0127)(0.0136)
Unemployed0.33710.33890.32470.29760.3103
(0.2158)(0.2160)(0.2188)(0.2335)(0.2351)
Married0.08140.05960.05780.09190.0931
(0.0936)(0.0951)(0.0960)(0.0990)(0.0988)
Cross_fem&age squared−0.0000−0.0000−0.0000−0.0000−0.0000
(0.0001)(0.0001)(0.0001)(0.0001)(0.0001)
Number of siblings −0.00070.0007−0.0110−0.0116
(0.0236)(0.0236)(0.0237)(0.0237)
Number of sons 0.04340.03940.04100.0318
(0.0612)(0.0611)(0.0615)(0.0621)
Number of daughters 0.05570.05560.04100.0362
(0.0575)(0.0576)(0.0579)(0.0585)
Log of household income −0.0150−0.0131−0.0109
(0.0267)(0.0266)(0.0265)
Log of household asset 0.0148 *0.0136 *0.0127
(0.0078)(0.0077)(0.0077)
Social security −0.2531 *−0.2490 *
(0.1420)(0.1427)
Government dependency 0.6801 ***0.6802 ***
(0.0800)(0.0800)
Savings_retire 0.01900.0199
(0.0834)(0.0834)
Savings_ltc 0.04810.0319
(0.0893)(0.0899)
Parents inheritance −0.1349
(0.1169)
Parents education years −0.0110
(0.0122)
One parent care 0.1936 *
(0.1152)
Both parent care −0.1093
(0.1510)
Observations12601260126012601260
Adj R-squared0.01030.01070.01220.04460.0464
Log likelihood−1355−1355−1353−1309−1306
Chi2 statistics26.1128.1235.23125.1131.6
p-value0.000.000.000.000.00
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.
Table 6. Subsample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms by rural/urban residency.
Table 6. Subsample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms by rural/urban residency.
VariablesDependent Variable: Perception of Family Caregiving Norm
RuralUrban
Female−0.2836 **−0.0768
(0.1160)(0.0802)
Age−0.04930.0229
(0.0353)(0.0255)
Age_squared0.0006−0.0002
(0.0004)(0.0003)
Education years0.00140.0221
(0.0215)(0.0179)
Unemployed0.8345 *0.1673
(0.4690)(0.2754)
Married−0.02470.2246 *
(0.1907)(0.1226)
Number of siblings0.0028−0.0324
(0.0353)(0.0329)
Number of sons0.0350−0.0177
(0.0960)(0.0844)
Number of daughters0.1037−0.0678
(0.0903)(0.0773)
Log of household income−0.0230−0.0086
(0.0288)(0.0790)
Log of household asset0.0229 **−0.0214 *
(0.0095)(0.0123)
Social security−0.0262−0.3040 *
(0.2759)(0.1682)
Government dependency1.1986 ***0.4534 ***
(0.1470)(0.0932)
Savings_retire0.00100.0220
(0.1501)(0.1051)
Savings_ltc−0.05750.0671
(0.1830)(0.1062)
Parents inheritance−0.5302−0.0980
(0.4399)(0.1239)
Parents education years−0.0116−0.0162
(0.0207)(0.0154)
One parent care0.5169 ***0.0102
(0.1866)(0.1522)
Both parent care−0.1918−0.0852
(0.2131)(0.2279)
Observations448812
Adj R-squared0.1090.0259
Log likelihood−436.5−833.9
Chi2 statistics104.445.50
p-value0.000.00
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.
Table 7. Subsample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms by rural/urban residency and gender.
Table 7. Subsample ordered probit regression results of perceptions of family caregiving norms by rural/urban residency and gender.
VariablesDependent Variable: Perception of Family Caregiving Norm
RuralUrbanRuralUrban
FemaleMale
Age0.0093−0.1440 ***0.02200.0348
(0.0491)(0.0498)(0.0348)(0.0382)
Age_squared−0.00010.0018 ***−0.0003−0.0003
(0.0005)(0.0006)(0.0004)(0.0004)
Education years0.0480−0.0567 *0.0452 *−0.0081
(0.0301)(0.0328)(0.0268)(0.0246)
Unemployed0.70944.6527 ***0.21200.2876
(0.6286)(0.2899)(0.3010)(0.4318)
Married−0.34720.13840.3276 **0.1873
(0.3448)(0.2611)(0.1631)(0.1877)
Number of siblings0.0187−0.0500−0.0378−0.0345
(0.0532)(0.0500)(0.0448)(0.0507)
Number of sons0.15150.0208−0.0144−0.1033
(0.1419)(0.1407)(0.1203)(0.1277)
Number of daughters0.08700.10030.0169−0.2057
(0.1263)(0.1402)(0.0977)(0.1333)
Log of household income−0.0088−0.0169−0.14290.0772
(0.0515)(0.0393)(0.1058)(0.1219)
Log of household asset0.0294 **0.0210−0.0025−0.0403 **
(0.0144)(0.0135)(0.0170)(0.0183)
Social security0.02300.0863−0.4827 *−0.1275
(0.4118)(0.4160)(0.2515)(0.2268)
Government dependency1.1789 ***1.3444 ***0.4330 ***0.4708 ***
(0.2466)(0.2002)(0.1369)(0.1284)
Savings_retire0.0977−0.07110.0609−0.0150
(0.2006)(0.2293)(0.1483)(0.1523)
Savings_ltc−0.1846−0.01420.3258 **−0.2602 *
(0.2330)(0.2984)(0.1494)(0.1534)
Parents inheritance4.0923 ***−0.5355−0.2867 *0.0275
(0.3752)(0.4343)(0.1578)(0.1923)
Parents education years−0.02620.0058−0.0201−0.0131
(0.0287)(0.0318)(0.0230)(0.0212)
One parent care0.6797 **0.4598 *−0.08370.1045
(0.2895)(0.2487)(0.2210)(0.2174)
Both parent care−0.6800 **0.39770.3466−0.6195 **
(0.3269)(0.3187)(0.3408)(0.3032)
Observations225223402410
Adj R-squared0.1140.1630.04570.0373
Log likelihood−219.5−200.1−408.3−411.3
Chi2 statistics451.1543.638.0536
p-value000.003810.00706
Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuramoto, Y.; Nabeshima, H.; Khan, M.S.R.; Kadoya, Y. The Association of Caregivers’ Socio-Economic Conditions with Family Caregiving Norms: Evidence from China. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050362

AMA Style

Kuramoto Y, Nabeshima H, Khan MSR, Kadoya Y. The Association of Caregivers’ Socio-Economic Conditions with Family Caregiving Norms: Evidence from China. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(5):362. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050362

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuramoto, Yu, Honoka Nabeshima, Mostafa Saidur Rahim Khan, and Yoshihiko Kadoya. 2023. "The Association of Caregivers’ Socio-Economic Conditions with Family Caregiving Norms: Evidence from China" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 5: 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050362

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop