1. Robert A. Cummins 1 Anna L.D. Lau 2 Jacqui Woerner 1 1 Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University 2 Hong Kong Polytechnic University The wellbeing of caregivers http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol This manuscript contains notes below each slide. To view these notes, open in Powerpoint, go to ‘View’, and click on ‘Notes Page’

2. Quality of Life Objective Conditions e.g. Poor Medical Health Subjective Perceptions e.g. Low perceived satisfaction with health Objective QOLSubjective Wellbeing

3. What is subjective wellbeing? A normally positive state of mind that involves the whole life experience “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?”

4. ( Personal Wellbeing Index ) Standard of living Health Achieving in life Relationships Safety Community connectedness Future security How satisfied are you with your-----?

5. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Surveys Geographically representative sample N = 2,000 Telephone interview #1:April 2001 ------------ #14:October 2005

6. How satisfied are you with your --------? 012345688910 Completely Dissatisfied Completely Satisfied Mixed [Jones and Thurstone,1955] 11-point, end-defined scale

7. 40 4 50 5 60 6 70 7 80 8 90 9 100 10 3020100 3210 Standardized Original All data are converted to a standardized range from 0 - 100

8. Normative range using survey mean scores as data (N=13) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SD = 0.8 Mean = 74.9 76.4 73.4 Subjective Wellbeing Very satisfied Very dissatisfied

9. What causes subjective wellbeing to fall below the normal range? When the demands on the person greatly exceed their resources

10. The challenge of children vs People resources Depression risk Normative Range 77.3 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 Partner only Subjective Wellbeing 76.7 73.4

11. The challenge of children vs People resources Subjective Wellbeing Depression risk Normative Range 77.3 76.9 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 Partner only Partner and children 76.7 73.4

12. The challenge of children vs People resources Subjective Wellbeing Depression risk Normative Range 77.3 76.9 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 Partner only Partner and children 76.7 73.4 70.4 Sole parents

13. The challenge of children vs Financial resources 76.7 Normative Range 73.4 79.1 77.4 77.3 76.5 75.4 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 <$15$15-$30$31-$60$61-$90$91-$120$121-$150$150+ Household Income ($'000) Partner only Subjective Wellbeing

14. The challenge of children vs Financial resources

16. Survey 13 Special topic: The wellbeing of home-based caregivers “Is there a person in your household who needs to be physically cared-for due to their age or disability?”

17. 76.6 73.4 Normal range 71.1 75.1 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 No N=1696 Yes N=230 Subjective Wellbeing

18. Demands > Resources Never married as caregivers

19. Demands = Partner resources Married caregivers

20. Demands defeat Partner resources Depression risk below Normal range 76.6 73.4 67.1 76.1 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 Partner + Elderly/Disabled Person Partner + Elderly/Disabled Person + child Subjective Wellbeing

21. Time resources

22. Demands of the person being cared for Normal Range 76.6 73.4 75.1 73.5 71.5 71.1 60.9 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 No primary caregiver role (N=1,696) A child (N=122) Elderly (N=48) Disabled (N=34) Yourself (N=32) Primary caregivers to ---- Subjective Wellbeing

23. Characteristics of self-primary caregivers. Age:Represented in all groups > 26y 63% are +56y Gender:50-50 Household structure:67% live with their partner 23% live alone Relationships status:60% are married Work status:68% full-time retired

24. Person demands vs life domains

27. “Are you the person who provides most of the care?” Normal Range 76.6 73.4 72.7 72.6 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Yes (N=140) No (N=60) Subjective Wellbeing

28. Conclusions Caregiving is a potential threat to the wellbeing of ALL household members. That threat needs to be matched by resources (personal or financial) Caregivers particularly at risk are: –Caregivers of people who are elderly or disabled –Solo caregivers (either self or other) –Caregivers with low income

29. References Andrews, F.M., & Withey, S.B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American's perceptions of life quality. Plenum Press, New York. Baxter, C., Cummins, R.A., & Polak, S. (1995). A longitudinal study of parental stress and support: The influence of child disability from diagnosis to leaving school. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42, 125-136. Baxter, C., Cummins, R.A., & Yiolitis, L. (2000). Parental stress attributed to disabled family members: A longitudinal study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25, 105-118. Bendo, A. A., & Feldman, H. (1974). A comparison of the self-concept of low-income women with and without husbands present. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 9(1), 53-85. Cummins, R.A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179-200. Cummins, R.A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307-334. Cummins, R.A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225-256. Cummins, R.A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52, 55-72. Cummins, R.A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133-158). Cummins, R.A. (2001). The subjective well-being of people caring for a severely disabled family member at home: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 26, 83-100. Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., Okerstrom, E., Woerner, J. & Tomyn, A.(2005). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 13.0 – “The Wellbeing of Australians – Caregiving at Home”. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 1 74156 014 4. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htmhttp://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm

30. References Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R. Pallant, J. Van Vugt, J, & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159-190. Cummins, R.A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 74-93). Singapore: National University of Singapore. Cummins, R.A., & Lau, A.L.D. (2004) The motivation to maintain subjective well-being : A homeostatic model. In H. Switzky (Ed.), International Review of Research on Mental Retardation: Personality and Motivational Systems in Mental Retardation, 28, (pp. 255-301). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cummins, R.A. & Lau, A.L.D. (in press). The relationship between health and subjective wellbeing. Social Policy Review. Cummins, R.A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69. Gove, W.R., & Geerken, M. (1977). Response bias in surveys of mental health: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1289-1317. Jones, L.V., & Thurstone, L.L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 39(1), 31-36. Lee, M.Y., Law, C.K., & Tam, K.K. (1999). Parenthood and life satisfaction: A comparison of single-and dual parent families in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 42, 139-163. Shields, M., & Wooden, M. (2003). Marriage, children and subjective well-being. Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, February 2003.