The Vicious Cycle of Parental Caregiving and Financial Well-being: A Longitudinal Study of Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examines the relationship between caring for older parents and the financial well-being of caregivers by investigating whether a reciprocal association, or vicious cycle, exists between female caregiver's lower household incomes and caring for elderly parents. METHOD: Data for women aged 51 or older with at least 1 living parent or parent-in-law were drawn from the Health and Retirement Survey 2006, 2008, and 2010 (N = 2,093). A cross-lagged panel design was applied with structural equation modeling. RESULTS: We found support for the reciprocal relationship between parental caregiving and lower household income. Female caregivers were more likely than noncaregivers to be in lower household income at later observation points. Also, women with lower household income were more likely than women with higher household income to assume caregiving at later observation points. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that there exists a vicious cycle of parental care and lower household income among women. A key concern for policy is female caregivers' financial status when care of older parents is assumed and care burden when women's financial status declines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".