Back

Impact of Informal Caregiving on Health Outcomes: A Population-Based Analysis Using BRFSS Data (2015 to 2020)

Bouras, A.

2025-08-21 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.08.17.25333864 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundInformal caregivers provide essential care to family members and friends with health problems or disabilities, yet little is known about the population-level health impacts of caregiving responsibilities. ObjectiveTo examine the association between informal caregiver status and physical and mental health outcomes using nationally representative data. MethodsI analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2015-2020, focusing on respondents with caregiver status information (n=422,495). Care-givers were defined as individuals providing regular care or assistance to a family member or friend with a health problem or disability. Primary outcomes were poor physical health days ([&ge;]14 days in past month) and poor mental health days ([&ge;]14 days in past month). I used survey-weighted logistic regression accounting for the complex sampling design. ResultsAmong 422,495 respondents, 89,814 (21.3%) were caregivers. Caregivers were more likely to be female (58.4% vs 50.6%) and report poor health outcomes. After accounting for survey weights, caregivers had significantly higher odds of poor physical health (OR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.23-1.34, p<0.001) and poor mental health (OR=1.70, 95% CI: 1.63-1.77, p<0.001) compared to non-caregivers. Mental health disparities were particularly pronounced, with 16.5% of caregivers vs 10.4% of non-caregivers reporting[&ge;] 14 poor mental health days. ConclusionsInformal caregivers experience significant health disparities compared to non-caregivers, particularly for mental health outcomes. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and policies to support caregiver health and wellbeing.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.