Association between primary caregiver type and mortality among Chinese older adults with disability: a prospective cohort study

Table 5 Association between caregiver type and all-cause mortality among urban and rural Chinese older adults by residence

Residence of care receiver	Caregiver type	Multivariable adjusted with interaction term in residence and type
Residence of care receiver	Caregiver type	Count	HR (95% CI)	P-value
Urban	Married (N = 169)
	Spouse	83	Ref.
	Son/daughter-in-law	36	1.85 (1.14, 3.01)	.013
	Daughter/son-in-law	30	1.54 (0.86, 2.75)	.133
	Widowed (N = 1754)
	Son/daughter-in-law	877	Ref.
	Daughter/son-in-law	492	0.88 (0.77, 1.02)	.074
	Grandchildren	183	0.89 (0.72, 1.09)	.274
	Domestic helper	202	0.84 (0.68, 1.03)	.100
Rural	Married (N = 191)
	Spouse	99	Ref.
	Son/daughter-in-law	70	1.27 (0.87, 1.86)	.219
	Daughter/son-in-law	17	1.83 (0.92, 3.57)	.080
	Widowed (N = 2164)
	Son/daughter-in-law	1553	Ref.
	Daughter/son-in-law	360	0.87 (0.76, 1.00)	.046
	Grandchildren	214	0.84 (0.70, 1.00)	.055
	Domestic helper	37	1.50 (1.04, 2.18)	.031

Abbreviations: HR Hazard ratio, CI Confidence interval, ADL Activity of daily living
Notes: Other caregiver types (including other relatives, neighbours, social services, and nobody) were excluded due to small sample sizes
Adjusted variables include age, sex, number of ADL disability, co-residence (living with children vs. not living with children), education years, financial independence (yes vs. no), self-rated health (very good/good/so-so/bad/very bad), number of chronic conditions, cognitive impaired (MMSE< 18), and caregiving quality

ISSN: 1471-2318