Associations Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and Depressive Symptoms of Partner Caregivers

Abstract

Family members—mainly spouses and partners—are the primary caregivers for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRDs), chronic progressive illnesses requiring increasing levels of care. We performed a retrospective observational analysis comparing depressive symptoms of 16,650 older individuals with partners without ADRDs, and those recently (within 2 years) or less recently diagnosed (≥2 years prior), controlling for lagged sociodemographic and health characteristics. The mean number of reported depressive symptoms was 1.2 (SD = 1.8). Compared with respondents with partners with no ADRD, having a partner with any ADRD was associated with a 0.35 increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.30, 0.41]), or 30% increase, in depressive symptoms. A less recent partner diagnosis was associated with a 33% increase, while a recent diagnosis was associated with a 27% increase. Clinically meaningful and longitudinally worsening depressive symptoms amplify the need to prioritize partner health and family-centered care following an ADRD diagnosis.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease caregiving dementia depression quantitative methods

Introduction

Of an estimated US$200 billion in annual U.S. care costs for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRDs), three quarters is attributed to long-term care and home-based care provided by unpaid caregivers (Hurd et al., 2013; Mehta & Yeo, 2017). More than 16 million family caregivers provide an average of nearly 22 hours of informal, unpaid care per caregiver per week (Alzheimer’s Association, 2019). This substantial provision of care reflects the extensive physical, functional, and behavioral issues associated with the disease that increase over time. Furthermore, informal caregiving time for care recipients with ADRDs may significantly increase with worsening ADRD severity and for individuals who are partnered or married (Hajek et al., 2016).

It is widely known that family caregiving acts as a chronic stressor and places considerable burden on caregivers of care recipients with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer and stroke (Bevans & Sternberg, 2012; Schulz et al., 2020). Factors associated with burden including neuropsychiatric symptoms, loss of relationship closeness, and limited caregiver sense of competence are understood to negatively affect the emotional health of family members who provide supportive care (Fauth et al., 2012; van der Lee et al., 2017), particularly for spousal and partner caregivers (Givens et al., 2014), who comprise more than 60% of ADRD caregivers (Alzheimer’s Association, 2019).

While it is believed that providing informal care for a partner with ADRDs leads to poorer emotional health, the exact nature of the relationship over time is unclear. It is likely that the emotional health of the partner or spousal caregiver worsens generally, but varies over time. For instance, after an ADRD diagnosis, a partner caregiver’s emotional health status may decline just after a diagnosis but later return to its prediagnosis level. In support of this hypothesis, the mental health of older individuals is often unchanged following major life events (Atchley, 1989). Partner caregivers may be resilient to events, stabilizing or even improving in health even while care recipient health deteriorates (Hoffman et al., 2019).

Alternatively, a partner caregiver’s emotional health may continuously decline over time due to the progressive deteriorating nature of ADRDs, resulting in increased care demands of the care recipient. Because the condition of a person with dementia can criticually influence health, behavioral changes related to ADRDs could have cumulative effects on a partner caregiver’s emotional health over time.

Prior research has observed high rates of emotional health issues (anxiety and depression incident rates as high as 60%) among spousal caregivers of individuals previously diagnosed with ADRDs (Joling, 2015). Additional studies that use cross-sectional designs have reported relationships between ADRD caregiving and poor caregiver emotional health (Adams, 2008). These studies did not account for time-varying effects of caregiving and did not control for baseline depression and, thus, were unable to isolate the marginal impact of an ADRD diagnosis on the emotional health of partner caregivers or identify whether the length of exposure influenced caregiver outcomes.

This study aimed to assess the temporal effects of an ADRD diagnosis on the emotional health of partner caregivers, examining both short and lengthier associations. We used a nationally representative dataset to evaluate depressive symptoms of older adult partner caregivers of individuals who were diagnosed with ADRD less recently (≥2 years prior) and more recently (within 2 years). This study focused on older adult caregivers as they may be most subject to emotional strains of caregiving due to longer term relationships with their partner and because of instrumental challenges (e.g., aging-related health changes, limited social connections, limited access to quality, and consistent health care) that could affect their ability to care for their partner with ADRDs over time.

Method

Data

This retrospective, observational analysis used pooled data from the eight waves of the 2000 to 2014 Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The HRS (2018) is a longitudinal household study that surveys approximately 20,000 Americans aged 51 years and older approximately every 2 years, with each year-specific survey defined as a wave. It captures sociodemographic, health, and functioning information, including for both spouses/partners in households with married or partnered individuals. These data were chosen as they allow for the creation of a robust, longitudinal data set containing linked data for each member of a spousal/partner dyad over time plus validated measures of cognitive functioning and depressive symptoms (Gianattasio et al., 2019; Langa et al., 2009).

Study Population

Older respondents (aged 51 years and older) who met the following inclusion criteria were included in the study sample: completed at least two adjacent waves of the HRS from 2000 to 2014 (e.g., the 2002 and 2004 waves), had a spouse or partner (of any age) who also responded to the two or more adjacent surveys, and had complete data for model covariates detailed below. These criteria resulted in a final study sample of 62,457 observations for 16,650 unique older respondents. The number of observations per respondent ranged from 1 to 7, with an average of 3.8 (SD = 2.2). Given repeated observations (HRS waves) among the respondents, the unit of analysis was a “person-wave,” or respondent-specific answers to HRS surveys collected every 2 years. Given inclusion in our sample of both members of spousal/partner dyads, we refer to one spouse as the “respondent” and the partner/spouse of that individual as the “partner”; in cases where the respondent’s partner was diagnosed with ADRDs, we refer to the respondent as the “respondent caregiver” and the partner with ADRD as the “care recipient.”

Outcome

The primary outcome of emotional health was operationalized in this study as the number of self-reported depressive symptoms of the respondent, based upon the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale (Radloff, 1977), a valid and reliable indicator with a range of 0 to 8 (Karim et al., 2015). Respondents were asked to indicate (yes/no) whether, over the past week (prior to the survey administration), they felt the following much of the time: depressed, everything is an effort, sleep is restless, felt alone, felt sad, could not get going, felt happy, and enjoyed life. The latter two items were reverse coded, and one point was then given for each yes response. A higher score indicates the presence of more depressive symptoms.

Main Predictors of Interest

The ADRD status of the respondent’s partner was the main predictor of interest, defined categorically as no ADRD diagnosis ever, a less recent diagnosis (≥2 years), or a recent ADRD diagnosis (less than 2 years). ADRD status of the partner was identified using questions from the HRS survey about whether their spouse or partner ever received a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or other memory-related disorder or had received such a diagnosis since the prior survey wave, where the average time between survey waves was approximately 2 years (Gaugler et al., 2018). ADRD categories for the respondent’s partner were then created by first coding those partners never having received an ADRD diagnosis and those having received any ADRD diagnosis. Those partners who had received an ADRD diagnosis were further categorized into recent diagnosis of <2 years and those with a longer diagnosis of ≥2 years resulting in three categories of partner ADRD status: never diagnosed with ADRDs, ADRD diagnosis within 2 years, and ADRD diagnosis received 2 or more years earlier.

Therefore, respondents with partners reporting no ADRD initially but later diagnosed with ADRD would be categorized initially as having a partner with no ADRD but in subsequent waves as having a partner with ADRDs. If the respondent’s depressive symptoms were measured in the same wave in which the partner developed ADRDs, then the respondent would be considered to have “recent” exposure (<2 years); if the respondent’s depressive symptoms were measured in waves following the partner’s ADRD diagnosis, then the respondent was considered to have “longer” exposure (≥2 years). In the analysis, the never ADRD diagnosis of the respondent’s partner was the reference group.

Covariates

Depression and ADRD diagnoses are associated with a number of sociodemographic, health, and functioning characteristics among older adults (Bauer et al., 2014; Fiest et al., 2011; Hybels et al., 2006). Potential confounders of the relationship between respondent depressive symptoms and the ADRD status of the partner were included as covariates in this study. Demographic variables of the respondent included age (continuous variable, ≥51), sex (dummy variable: 0 = male, 1 = female), race/ethnicity (dummy variables for non-Hispanic White, African American, Hispanic, and other races), level of education (dummy variables for less than high school, General Education Development [GED] or high school graduate, some college, college degree, and above), and total household annual income (continuous variable). Variables relating to the health of the respondent were having ever smoked (dummy variable: 0 = no, 1 = yes); seven separate dummies indicating ever having been diagnosed with the following chronic conditions (high blood pressure, diabetes, lung disease, heart disease, stroke, cancer, or arthritis); and variables reflecting current health status: number of days of drinking alcoholic beverages per week (discrete variable: 0–7); body mass index (BMI; continuous variable), number of limitations with activities of daily living (ADLs) (discrete variable: 0–5); number of limitations with instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs; discrete variable: 0–5); and baseline number of prior depressive symptoms (i.e., symptoms measured in the “baseline” wave, which was prior to that in which the outcome was measured). Each of these variables was measured for the older respondent (and not the partner); the only information recorded for the partner was ADRD status in the “baseline” wave.

To ensure temporality in the analysis (e.g., covariates of the respondent preceding report of her or his depressive symptoms), all time-varying covariates were lagged by one survey wave (Hoffman et al., 2017). Covariates were measured in Wave w − 1 (or “baseline”), and the outcome and predictor of interest were measured in Wave w (or “follow-up,” approximately 2 years later; Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Illustration of lagged baseline covariates and follow-up depressive symptoms.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, overall and according to ADRD diagnosis status. Appropriate tests (chi-square, t tests, and Kruskal–Wallis tests) were used to examine differences in respondent characteristics across partner ADRD diagnosis status.

Because the outcome variable—number of depressive symptoms of the respondent—had a skewed distribution, lacked equidispersion, and contained a large number of zeroes (32,188 of 62,457, or 51.5% of observations), zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used (Hidayat & Pokhrel, 2010). Coefficients from the negative binomial regression models are incident rate ratios (IRRs), which indicate (among respondents with any probability of having depressive symptoms) the change in the respondent’s expected count of depressive symptoms according to ADRD status of the partner. Marginal effects representing incremental change in the probability of respondent depressive symptoms, after covariate adjustment, were computed using Stata margins command. A marginal effect of 0.30 for recent partner ADRD diagnosis would indicate that, all else equal, having a partner recently diagnosed is associated with a 0.30 increase in depressive symptoms of the respondent.

A first model regressed respondent depressive symptoms at follow-up on whether a partner was ever diagnosed with ADRDs (regardless of diagnosis recency). A second model regressed the same respondent outcome on dummy variables indicating less recent (≥2 years) and recent (<2 years) partner ADRD diagnoses. Both models adjusted for baseline (lagged) covariates of the respondent, including depressive symptoms. Cluster-robust standard errors were used to account for the inclusion of repeated observations (person-wave) from some of the respondents. The coefficients on the predictors of interest represent the incremental change (from baseline to follow-up) in depressive symptoms for respondents associated with more recent and longer exposures, compared with no exposure, to a partner with ADRDs.

In sensitivity analyses, we included two additional covariates unavailable for all years of the study period. These were respondent use of prescription medications for anxiety and/or depression (a variable available in the HRS beginning in 2006) and frequency of light physical activity (≥3 times per week, 1–2 times/week, 1–3 times per month, less than 1 time per month, and never; available beginning in 2004). Examples of light physical activity included walking, gardening, golfing, dancing, and bowling. The sensitivity models used the same methods as in the primary analyses but were restricted to years 2006 to 2014 (controlling for prescription medications for anxiety and/or depression) and 2004 to 2014 (controlling for frequency of light physical activity). These findings were compared with the main models that were reestimated using the same respective years of data as the two sensitivity models (because the years of data available were more limited for these analyses, the sample sizes were comparatively smaller than the main analyses). The same analytic sample was used in each of these sensitivity analyses to ensure appropriateness of the comparisons using the different model risk adjusters; absent use of the same samples, differences in model coefficients could have been due to differing samples rather than differences reflecting changes in the risk adjustment strategies.

We also reestimated models using fixed effects specifications to control for within-person unobservable factors that may have biased our main results. With fixed effects, respondents serve as their own controls over time, which allows for adjustment for time-invariant factors that may confound the relationship of interest. All data were analyzed using Stata software version IC 15.1 developed by StataCorp LLC (StataCorp, 2017).

This study was determined to be not regulated by the affiliated university’s institutional review board.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 1, across the overall sample of person-waves, respondents’ mean age was 65.6 years (SD = 8.9) and the majority were female (50.5%) and non-Hispanic White (77.4%). Mean annual household income was 78,034 (SD = 126,599). The mean depressive symptom of partner caregivers at “follow-up” (Wave w) and at “baseline” (Wave w − 1) was 1.2 (SD = 1.8).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and Health Characteristics of Respondents Overall and by Partner ADRD Status (2000–2014).

Characteristic	Overall (n = 62,457)	No partner ADRD (n = 59,805)	Partner ADRD status
Characteristic	Overall (n = 62,457)	No partner ADRD (n = 59,805)	Any diagnosis (n = 2,652)	Less recently diagnosed (n = 1,677)	Recently diagnosed (n = 975)
Mean (SD) follow-up depressive symptoms^*	1.2 (1.8)	1.2 (1.8)	2.1 (2.2)	2.2 (2.3)	1.8 (2.1)
Mean (SD) baseline depressive symptoms^*	1.2 (1.8)	1.1 (1.7)	1.9 (2.2)	2.1 (2.2)	1.6 (2.1)
Mean (SD) age^*	65.6 (8.9)	65.4 (8.8)	71.5 (9.5)	71.2 (9.8)	72.2 (9.0)
Male (%)^*	49.5	50.1	37.4	37.5	37.4
Race/ethnicity (%)^*
Non-Hispanic White	77.4	77.5	75.2	75.8	77.6
African American	10.6	10.6	11.2	12.3	9.4
Hispanic	9.6	9.6	11.3	11.5	11.1
Other races	2.4	2.4	2.2	2.4	1.9
Education (%)^*
<High school	16.8	16.4	25.1	26.7	22.4
High school	35.2	35.2	35.5	34.9	36.7
Some college	23.0	23.0	23.0	22.5	15.9
College and above	25.0	25.4	16.4	15.9	17.2
Mean (SD) household income^*	78,034 (126,599)	79,306 (128,182)	49,358 (77,024)	47,829 (75,002)	51,985 (82,680)
Ever smoked (% yes)	57.0	57.1	55.1	54.1	56.8
Chronic medical conditions (%)
High blood pressure^*	57.0	53.2	65.0	60.9	60.7
Diabetes^*	18.8	18.6	21.8	23.1	19.6
Lung disease^*	8.2	8.0	13.3	13.5	12.9
Heart disease^*	22.2	21.8	30.1	31.5	27.6
Stroke^*	4.9	4.8	7.1	7.7	6.2
Cancer^*	13.1	12.9	18.0	18.6	16.8
Arthritis^*	56.4	55.9	68.1	68.0	68.3
Mean weekly alcohol consumption (number days; SD)^*	1.3 (2.2)	1.3 (2.2)	0.9 (2.0)	0.9 (1.9)	1.0 (2.0)
Mean BMI (SD)^*	28.2 (5.5)	28.2 (5.5)	27.6 (5.8)	27.7 (5.9)	27.4 (5.5)
Mean (SD) ADL limitations^*	0.2 (0.6)	0.2 (0.6)	0.4 (0.9)	0.4 (0.9)	0.3 (0.8)
Mean (SD) IADL limitations^*	0.1 (0.5)	0.1 (0.5)	0.2 (0.7)	0.3 (0.7)	0.2 (0.6)

Note. Characteristics are measured for older respondents. Respondent characteristics included in the column indicating partner with any ADRD diagnosis (“Any diagnosis”) include respondents who had a partner with either a recent or less recent ADRD diagnosis. Partner less recently diagnosed indicates a respondent who had a partner who received any ADRD diagnosis 2 or more years earlier. Partner recently diagnosed indicates a respondent who had a partner who received any ADRD diagnosis in the last 2 years. Follow-up depressive symptoms for respondents were those reported at Wave w, while baseline depressive symptoms were those reported at Wave w − 1. For instance, Wave w could indicate the 2004 HRS wave, while Wave w − 1 could indicate the 2002 HRS wave. ADL = activities of daily living; ADRD = Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia; BMI = body mass index; IADLs = instrumental activities of daily living; HRS = Health and Retirement Study.

p < .05.

Compared with the 59,805 observations of respondents with partners without ADRD, those with a partner with any ADRD (recent or less recent) were older (71.5, SD = 9.5 vs. 65.4, SD = 8.8; p < .001), were more often women (62.6% vs. 49.1%, p < .001), more often of minority racial/ethnic background (24.8% vs. 22.5%, p = .01), and were less educated (22.4% vs. 16.4%, p < .001). Mean annual household income was also lower for respondents with partners who had any ADRD (whether diagnosed more or less recently; US$49,358, SD = US$77,024) compared with those with partners with no ADRD (US$79,306, SD = US$128,182; p < .001). More respondents who had partners with any ADRD diagnoses (recent or less recent) compared with those with partners with no ADRD diagnosis reported having chronic medical conditions. They also reported more difficulties with ADLs (0.4, SD = 0.9 vs. 0.2, SD = 0.6) and IADLs (0.2, SD = 0.7 vs. 0.1, SD = 0.5).

Adjusted Results

A first model compared depressive symptoms at “follow-up” for respondents whose partner had any diagnosis (regardless of recency) versus no ADRD diagnosis, controlling for “baseline” covariates. Being a respondent with a partner having versus not having any ADRD diagnosis increased the number of respondent depressive symptoms by a factor of 1.3 (IRR = 1.30, p < .001; Table 2). This was equivalent to respondents with partners with any ADRD having 0.35 (p < .001) more depressive symptoms (marginal difference) than those with partners with no ADRD diagnosis. Given a mean of 1.15 symptoms among respondents in the no ADRD diagnosis group, this amounted to a (0.35/1.15 =) 30% increase in respondent depressive symptoms.

Table 2.

Incident Rate Ratios, Marginal Differences, and Percentage Change in Respondent Depressive Symptoms According to Partner ADRD Status, 2000 to 2014 (n = 62,457).

Partner ADRD status	Incident rate ratio [95% CI]	Marginal difference [95% CI]	p value	Percentage change (%)
Any diagnosis	1.30 [1.25, 1.35]	0.35 [0.30, 0.41]	<.001	30
Less recent diagnosis	1.32 [1.26, 1.38]	0.38 [0.31, 0.44]	<.001	33
Recent diagnosis	1.27 [1.19, 1.35]	0.31 [0.22, 0.41]	<.001	27

Note. Partner with any diagnosis includes those with a recent or less recent diagnosis. A less recent diagnosis indicates a respondent who had a partner who received any ADRD diagnosis 2 or more years earlier. A recent diagnosis indicates a respondent who had a partner who received any ADRD diagnosis in the last 2 years. Two separate zero-inflated negative binomial models were estimated. The first model’s results are presented in the first row. Results from the second model, which compared recent and less recent partner ADRD diagnosis with no partner ADRD diagnosis, are presented in the second and third rows. Percentage changes are based on marginal effects, given a mean of 1.15 depressive symptoms among caregivers of partners without ADRD (e.g., [0.35/1.15] = 30%). ADRD = Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia.

A second model compared the outcome of respondent depressive symptoms at follow-up by recency of partner ADRD diagnosis, controlling for baseline covariates. Compared with respondents whose partners did not have any ADRD diagnosis, having a partner less recently diagnosed increased the number of respondent depressive symptoms (IRR 1.32; marginal increase of 0.38 depressive symptoms, p < .001), as did having a partner more recently diagnosed (IRR: 1.27; marginal increase of 0.31 depressive symptoms, p < .001; Table 2). Based on these marginal effects, percentage increases in respondents’ depressive symptoms when having a partner with less and more recent ADRD diagnoses represented (0.38/1.15 =) 33% and (0.31/1.15 =) 27% average increases in respondents’ depressive symptoms, respectively.

Sensitivity Models

Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, with model coefficients nearly the same in models controlling for additional covariates or using fixed effects specifications when compared with the main models (see Supplemental Appendix A).

Discussion

In this study of the effect of length of exposure following a partner’s ADRD diagnosis on older American’s depressive symptoms, we report two main findings. First, having a partner with any ADRD diagnosis compared with no ADRD diagnosis was associated with a 30% overall increase in depressive symptoms of caregivers. Second, the increases in depressive symptoms of caregivers were greater when they had longer exposure to a partner’s ADRD diagnosis, with 33% versus 27% increases in depressive symptoms for caregivers with partners with less recent (≥ 2 years) and more recent (<2 years) ADRD diagnoses, respectively. To our knowledge, these are the first estimates of the incremental effects of diagnosis of ADRD on a partner caregiver’s emotional health in a large, nationally representative sample. Collectively, these findings highlight the cumulative, clinically meaningful impact of a partner’s ADRD diagnosis on the emotional health of older partner caregivers.

Prior research has observed a substantially increased incidence (37%–48%) of diagnosed depressive disorders associated with older adults having a spouse with ADRDs (Ballard et al., 1996; Joling et al., 2015). However, these studies recruited many spousal caregivers who already had elevated depressive symptoms at the time of study recruitment. Because individuals with high baseline depressive symptoms are more likely to reach a clinical threshold for depression, these studies’ estimates of clinical depression associated with ADRD care were unlikely to have captured the incremental effects of a partner’s ADRD diagnosis on spousal health.

However, the 30% incremental increases in depressive symptoms we observed in this study are clinically meaningful (Jensen et al., 2017) and concerning; for instance, the 0.38 increase for longer exposed spouses represents ~30% of the nonexposed sample’s standard deviation, where ≥30% suggests clinical significance (McLeod et al., 2016). A 0.5-standard deviation increase in depressive symptoms of older adults has previously been linked to a 30% increase in falls (Hoffman et al., 2017), while poorer health (Han, 2002) and cognitive decline (Köhler et al., 2010) can also result from such increased depressive symptoms among older adults. In all, the effects of an ADRD diagnosis are sizable and grow over time, with implications for partner welfare as well as partners’ ability to provide quality care to individuals with ADRD; this may be particularly important, given the growing size of the older adult population who will be living longer with chronic conditions including ADRDs.

Earlier work identifies as important the closeness of family relationships for health outcomes including attenuated declines for individuals with dementia in emotionally close relationships, particularly among spouses (Norton et al., 2009). A substantial literature has also identified interdependence in the health outcomes, or shared trajectories of health, among older adult dyads including dementia caregivers and their care recipients (Kershaw et al., 2015). Our findings reinforce the idea of these dynamic influences on the health of individuals within family dyads (Elder, 1995; Kim & Moen, 2002) and may additionally illustrate the persistent investments individuals make in their partners’ welfare (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). The intimacy of the spousal relationship may explain partners’ sustained commitments of support and caregiving, despite the growing emotional costs of helping a partner with a progressive disease, in turn heightening the need to “care for the caregiver” as behavioral and care needs exacerbate over time.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, we pooled data from multiple survey waves to expand the study sample and thereby increase statistical power. This use of repeated observations could reduce standard errors, resulting in falsely positive associations between partner ADRD status and depressive symptoms of caregivers. However, we clustered standard errors to address this concern, as is often done; moreover, sensitivity analyses using fixed effects models that explicitly modeled the hierarchical data were performed, with similar results to the main models. Therefore, the large sample size should be seen as a strength, particularly in light of prior work in this area that has used convenience samples with fewer than several hundred study participants (Ballard et al., 1996; Joling et al., 2015).

Second, for our primary predictor of interest, we identified ADRDs by combining responses for dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and other memory-related diseases. Different dementia types are associated with varying degrees of decline and behavioral disturbances (Gill et al., 2013; Steinberg et al., 2006), which can differentially affect caregiver burden and emotional health (Campbell et al., 2008). Delineating different ADRD types in clinical practice is often difficult and can result in multiple dementia types being comprised under a single dementia label. For clinical purposes, then, understanding the incremental impact of any of these dementia-related diagnoses for a partner caregiver’s health is of importance; however, this study was unable to evaluate the impacts of specific types of ADRD diagnoses on partner caregiver emotional health.

Third, this analysis did not explore the age of dementia onset as a covariate. This may be an important factor to explore in future research to further understand how early versus later onset diagnoses may differentially affect spousal caregivers, as younger onset dementia may be associated with greater caregiver depressive symptoms compared with diagnoses confirmed later in life (Millenaar et al., 2016).

Fourth, we used self- and proxy-reported diagnoses of ADRDs, which may not reflect when the disease first presented. Cognitive decline likely preceded ADRD diagnoses, meaning caregivers’ burdens may have already increased prior to any diagnosis. If anything, this would result in an underestimation of the impact of a diagnosis on spousal mental health, given high levels of burden experienced by caregivers of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (Connors et al., 2019).

These limitations notwithstanding, the large and growing cumulative impact of an individual’s ADRD diagnosis on a partner’s emotional health is suggestive of critical, potentially unmet emotional health needs for older Americans caring for partners with ADRDs. The interdependent nature of health between both members of the dyad observed in this study and earlier research further supports the increasingly recognized need for clinical, family-centered care planning throughout the disease process in consideration of needs of both clinically treated individuals and their partner caregivers (Griffin et al., 2019; Lyons & Lee, 2018; Noel et al., 2015). Absent such efforts, patients with ADRDs may have less than optimal support from family members.

This research magnifies the need for including family caregivers into care plans involving progressive chronic illness by exemplifying the interdependent, dynamic relationship between caregiver emotional health and care recipient cognitive health. Programs designed for couples affected by ADRDs should be prioritized that encompass the needs of both partners independently, as well as the well-being of the couple as a dyad (Hill et al., 2018). Interventions designed for dyads in early stages of ADRDs are important and can be effective (Whitlatch et al., 2006), but longer term initiatives to support the dyad throughout the lifetime of the disease should be further substantiated. Absent recognition and ongoing support of caregivers’ investments and potential emotional declines during care recipients’ disease progression, the quality of care support may suffer, along with the well-being of the caregiver; providers should not expect, then, that the level of informal support will necessarily be consistent over time during the course of the disease.

From a policy perspective, the results portend more challenges for family caregivers, given the growth of the older adult ADRD population (Matthews et al., 2019), even as programs to support caregivers remain poorly funded. Limited or conditional coverage for resources such as respite care for family caregivers through Medicare and state-level programs including the Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly and Medicaid waivers restricts possibilities for addressing caregiver health as a national priority issue of public health urgency. More funding and appropriate coverage for interventions shown to be effective in promoting caregiver emotional health, such as respite care, family daycare, optimism training, and psychosocial support programs (De Oliveira et al., 2019; Diaz et al., 2020; Tretteteig et al., 2016; Zhong et al., 2020), are needed.

Conclusion

This nationally representative study observed depressive symptoms of older individuals increasing by 30% or more after the diagnosis of ADRD in a partner, with larger impacts following longer exposures following a partner’s ADRD diagnosis. The findings demonstrate the cumulative and clinically meaningful effects of partner ADRD diagnoses on depressive symptoms among older partner caregivers during the development of a progressive disease. Clinicians and policymakers should prioritize family-centered health care practices and policies that can improve just-in-time and ongoing supportive services and mental health care for the vulnerable population of individuals diagnosed with ADRDs, as well as their partner caregivers.

Supplemental Material

Final_Appendix_A_1 – Supplemental material for Associations Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and Depressive Symptoms of Partner Caregivers

Supplemental material, Final_Appendix_A_1 for Associations Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and Depressive Symptoms of Partner Caregivers by Melissa L. Harris, Marita G. Titler and Geoffrey J. Hoffman in Journal of Applied Gerontology

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study used publicly available, already deidentified data and was determined to be not regulated by the institutional review board (IRB) at the University of Michigan.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Predoctoral Fellowship Training Grant (2018-Current), T32 NR016914 Complexity: Innovations in Promoting Health and Safety (Program Director: Titler).

ORCID iDs

Melissa L. Harris

Geoffrey J. Hoffman

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adams

K. B.

(2008). Specific effects of caring for a spouse with dementia: Differences in depressive symptoms between caregiver and non-caregiver spouses. International Psychogeriatrics, 20(3), 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610207006278

Alzheimer’s Association. (2019). Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. https://www.alz.org/media/Documents/alzheimers-facts-and-figures.pdf

Atchley

R. C.

(1989). A continuity theory of normal aging. The Gerontologist, 29(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/29.2.183

Ballard

C. G.

Eastwood

Gahir

Wilcock

(1996). A follow up study of depression in the carers of dementia sufferers. British Medical Journal, 312(7036), Article 947. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7036.947

Bauer

Schwarzkopf

Graessel

Holle

(2014). A claims data-based comparison of comorbidity in individuals with and without dementia. BMC Geriatrics, 14, Article 10.

Campbell

Wright

Oyebode

Job

Crome

Bentham

Jones

Lendon

(2008). Determinants of burden in those who care for someone with dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(10), 1078–1085. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2071

Bevans

Sternberg

E. M.

(2012). Caregiving burden, stress, and health effects among family caregivers of adult cancer patients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(4), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.29

Connors

M. H.

Seeher

Teixeira-Pinto

Woodward

Ames

Brodaty

(2019). Mild cognitive impairment and caregiver burden: A 3-year-longitudinal study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 27(11), 1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2019.05.012

De Oliveira

Sousa

Orrell

. (2019). Improving health-promoting self-care in family carers of people with dementia: A review of interventions. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 14, 515–523. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S190610

10.

Diaz

Ponsoda

J. M.

Belena

(2020). Optimism as a key to improving mental health in family caregivers of people living with Alzheimer’s disease. Aging & Mental Health, 24, 1662–1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1715342

11.

Elder

J. G. H.

(1995). The life course paradigm: Social change and individual development. In Moen

Elder

G. H.

Luscher

Bronfenbrenner

(Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 101–139). American Psychological Association.

12.

Fauth

Hess

Piercy

Norton

Corcoran

Rabins

Lyketsos

Tschanz

(2012). Caregivers’ relationship closeness with the person with dementia predicts both positive and negative outcomes for caregivers’ physical health and psychological well-being. Aging & Mental Health, 16(6), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2012.678482

13.

Fiest

K. M.

Currie

S. R.

Williams

J. V. A.

Wang

(2011). Chronic conditions and major depression in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 131(1), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.11.028

14.

Gaugler

J. E.

Jutkowitz

Peterson

C. M.

Zmora

(2018). Caregivers dying before care recipients with dementia. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 4(1), 688–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2018.08.010

15.

Gianattasio

K. Z.

Glymour

M. M.

Power

M. C.

(2019). Comparison of methods for algorithmic classification of dementia status in the health and retirement study. Epide-miology, 30(2), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000945

16.

Gill

D. P.

Hubbard

R. A.

Koepsell

T. D.

Borrie

M. J.

Petrella

R. J.

Knopman

D. S.

Kukull

W. A.

(2013). Differences in rate of functional decline across three dementia types. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, 9(5 Suppl.), S63–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.010

17.

Givens

J. L.

Mezzacappa

Heeren

Yaffe

Fredman

(2014). Depressive symptoms among dementia caregivers: Role of mediating factors. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22(5), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.08.010

18.

Griffin

J. M.

Riffin

Havyer

R. D.

Biggar

V. S.

Comer

Frangiosa

T. L.

Bangerter

L. R.

(2019). Integrating family caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease and dementias into clinical appointments: Identifying potential best practices. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39, 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464819880449

19.

Hajek

Brettschneider

Ernst

Posselt

Wiese

Prokein

Weyerer

Werle

Fuchs

Pentzek

Stein

Riedel-Heller

S. G.

Bickel

Mösch

Heser

Jessen

Maier

Scherer

König

H.-H.

(2016). Longitudinal predictors of informal and formal caregiving time in community-dwelling dementia patients. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(4), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1138-7

20.

Han

(2002). Depressive symptoms and self-rated health in community-dwelling older adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(9), 1549–1556. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50411.x

21.

Health and Retirement Study. (2018). Health and Retirement Study (RAND HRS) public use dataset (Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging, grant number NIA U01AG009740). University of Michigan.

22.

Hidayat

Pokhrel

(2010). The selection of an appropriate count data model for modelling health insurance and health care demand: Case of Indonesia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7010009

23.

Hill

Yeates

Donovan

(2018). You, me, us: Creating connection: Report on a program to support and empower couples to navigate the challenges of dementia (innovative practice). Dementia, 19, 2469–2476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218786592

24.

Hoffman

G. J.

Burgard

Mendez-Luck

C. A.

Gaugler

J. E.

(2019). Interdependence in health and functioning among older spousal caregivers and care recipients. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 41(5), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945918781057

25.

Hoffman

G. J.

Hays

R. D.

Wallace

S. P.

Shapiro

M. F.

Ettner

S. L.

(2017). Depressive symptomatology and fall risk among community-dwelling older adults. Social Science & Medicine, 178, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.020

26.

Hurd

M. D.

Martorell

Delavande

Mullen

K. J.

Langa

K. M.

(2013). Monetary costs of dementia in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368(14), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1204629

27.

Hybels

C. F.

Blazer

D. G.

Pieper

C. F.

Burchett

B. M.

Hays

J. C.

Fillenbaum

G. G.

Kubzansky

L. D.

Berkman

L. F.

(2006). Sociodemographic characteristics of the neighborhood and depressive symptoms in older adults: Using multilevel modeling in geriatric psychiatry. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(6), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JGP.0000194649.49784.29

28.

Jensen

R. E.

Moinpour

C. M.

Potosky

A. L.

Lobo

Hahn

E. A.

Hays

R. D.

Cella

Wilder Smith

X. -C.

Keegan

T. H. M.

Paddock

L. E.

Stroup

A. M.

Eton

D. T.

(2017). Responsiveness of 8 patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort. Cancer, 123(2), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30354

29.

Joling

K. J.

van Marwijk

H. W. J.

Veldhuijzen

A. E.

van der Horst

H. E.

Scheltens

Smit

van Hout

H. P. J.

(2015). The two-year incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in spousal caregivers of persons with dementia: Who is at the greatest risk? The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(3), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2014.05.005

30.

Karim

Weisz

Bibi

ur Rehman

(2015). Validation of the eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) among older adults. Current Psychology, 34(4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9281-y

31.

Kershaw

Ellis

K. R.

Yoon

Schafenacker

Katapodi

Northouse

(2015). The interdependence of advanced cancer patients’ and their family caregivers’ mental health, physical health, and self-efficacy over time. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(6), 901–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9743-y

32.

Kim

J. E.

Moen

(2002). Retirement transitions, gender, and psychological well-being: A life-course, ecological model. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 57(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.3.P212

33.

Köhler

van Boxtel

M. P. J.

van Os

Thomas

A. J.

O’Brien

J. T.

Jolles

Verhey

F. R.

Allardyce

(2010). Depressive symptoms and cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(5), 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02807.x

34.

Langa

K. M.

Llewellyn

D. J.

Lang

I. A.

Weir

D. R.

Wallace

R. B.

Kabeto

M. U.

Huppert

F. A.

(2009). Cognitive health among older adults in the United States and in England. BMC Geriatrics, 9(1), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-9-23

35.

Lyons

K. S.

Lee

C. S.

(2018). The theory of dyadic illness management. Journal of Family Nursing, 24(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840717745669

36.

Matthews

K. A.

Gaglioti

A. H.

Holt

J. B.

Croft

J. B.

Mack

McGuire

L. C.

(2019). Racial and ethnic estimates of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States (2015–2060) in adults aged ≥65 years. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, 15(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.3063

37.

McLeod

L. D.

Cappelleri

J. C.

Hays

R. D.

(2016). Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: Expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(3), 685–693. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.120378

38.

Mehta

K. M.

Yeo

G. W.

(2017). Systematic review of dementia prevalence and incidence in United States race/ethnic populations. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, 13(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.2360

39.

Millenaar

J. K.

de Vugt

M. E.

Bakker

van Vliet

Pijnenburg

Y. A. L.

Koopmans

R. T. C. M.

Verhey

F. R. J.

(2016). The impact of young onset dementia on informal caregivers compared with late onset dementia: Results from the NeedYD Study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(6), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2015.07.005

40.

Noel

M. A.

Kaluzynski

T. S.

Templeton

V. H.

(2015). Quality dementia care: Integrating caregivers into a chronic disease management model. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 36(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815589986

41.

Norton

M. C.

Piercy

K. W.

Rabins

P. V.

Green

R. C.

Breitner

J. C. S.

Østbye

Corcoran

Welsh-Bohmer

K. A.

Lyketsos

C. G.

Tschanz

J. T.

(2009). Caregiver-recipient closeness and symptom progression in Alzheimer disease: The Cache County Dementia Progression Study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 64(5), 560–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp052

42.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for research in the general population. Applied Psycho-logical Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

43.

Rusbult

C. E.

Buunk

B. P.

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202

44.

Schulz

Beach

S. R.

Czaja

S. J.

Martire

L. M.

Monin

J. K.

(2020). Family caregiving for older adults. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050754

45.

StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 1.

46.

Steinberg

Corcoran

Tschanz

J. T.

Huber

Welsh-Bohmer

Norton

M. C.

Zandi

Breitner

J. C. S.

Steffens

D. C.

Lyketsos

C. G.

(2006). Risk factors for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: The Cache County Study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(9), 824–830. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1567ataCorp.2017

47.

Tretteteig

Vatne

Rokstad

A. M. M.

(2016). The influence of day care centres for people with dementia on family caregivers: An integrative review of the literature. Aging & Mental Health, 20(5), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1023765

48.

van der Lee

Bakker

T. J. E. M.

Duivenvoorden

H. J.

Dröes

R.-M

. (2017). Do determinants of burden and emotional distress in dementia caregivers change over time? Aging & Mental Health, 21(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1102196

49.

Whitlatch

C. J.

Judge

Zarit

S. H.

Femia

(2006). Dyadic intervention for family caregivers and care receivers in early-stage dementia. The Gerontologist, 46(5), 688–694. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/46.5.688

50.

Zhong

Wang

Nicholas

(2020). Social support and depressive symptoms among family caregivers of older people with disabilities in four provinces of urban China: The mediating role of caregiver burden. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1403-9

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB