Context Most deaths in the United States occur among older persons who have
1 or more disabling conditions. As a result, many deaths are preceded by an
extended period during which family members provide care to their disabled
relative.
Objective To better understand the effect of bereavement on family caregivers
by examining predeath vs postdeath changes in self-reported and objective
health outcomes among elderly persons providing varying levels of care prior
to their spouse's death.
Design and Setting Prospective, population-based cohort study conducted in 4 US communities
between 1993 and 1998.
Participants One hundred twenty-nine individuals aged 66 to 96 years whose spouse
died during an average 4-year follow-up. Individuals were classified as noncaregivers
(n = 40), caregivers who reported no strain (n = 37), or strained caregivers
(n = 52).
Main Outcome Measures Changes in depression symptoms (assessed by the 10-item Center for Epidemiological
Studies–Depression [CES-D] scale), antidepressant medication use, 6
health risk behaviors, and weight among the 3 groups of participants.
Results Controlling for age, sex, race, education, prevalent cardiovascular
disease at baseline, and interval between predeath and postdeath assessments,
CES-D scores remained high but did not change among strained caregivers (9.44
vs 9.19; P = .76), while these scores increased for
both noncaregivers (4.74 vs 8.25; F1,116 = 14.33; P<.001) and nonstrained caregivers (4.94 vs 7.13; F1,116
= 4.35; P = .04). Noncaregivers were significantly
more likely to be using nontricyclic antidepressant medications following
the death than the nonstrained caregiver group (odds ratio [OR], 12.85; 95%
confidence interval [CI], 1.02-162.13; P = .05).
The strained caregiver group experienced significant improvement in health
risk behaviors following the death of their spouse (1.47 vs 0.66 behaviors;
F1,118 = 20.23; P<.001), while the
noncaregiver and nonstrained caregiver groups showed little change (0.27 vs
0.27 [P = .99] and 0.46 vs 0.27 [P = .39] behaviors, respectively). Noncaregivers experienced significant
weight loss following the death (149.1 vs 145.3 lb [67.1 vs 65.4 kg]; F1,101 = 8.12; P = .005), while the strained
and nonstrained caregiving groups did not show significant weight change (156.2
vs 155.2 lb [70.3 vs 69.8 kg] [P = .41] and 156.2
vs 154.0 lb [70.3 vs 69.3 kg] [P = .12], respectively).
Conclusions These data indicate that the impact of losing one's spouse among older
persons varies as a function of the caregiving experiences that precede the
death. Among individuals who are already strained prior to the death of their
spouse, the death itself does not increase their level of distress. Instead,
they show reductions in health risk behaviors. Among noncaregivers, losing
one's spouse results in increased depression and weight loss.
More than 2 million persons die in the United States each year. The
large majority of these deaths occur among older persons with 1 or more disabling
conditions that compromise their ability to function independently prior to
death. As a result, a typical death is preceded by an extended period of time
during which 1 or more family members provide health and support services
to their disabled relative.1,2
Although researchers have repeatedly documented the psychiatric and physical
health effects of family caregiving,3,4
caregivers are rarely followed up long enough to assess the effect of the
death of the disabled relative on the caregiver.5
Similarly, bereavement researchers rarely explore the extent to which family
members were involved in care prior to the death of their relative as a factor
affecting bereavement outcomes. To better understand the role of caregiving
in adjustment to bereavement, we examine predeath to postdeath changes in
both self-report and objective health outcomes including depression symptoms,
antidepressant medication use, health risk behaviors, and weight among husbands
and wives providing varying levels of care to their spouse prior to death.
These outcomes were selected because of their known association with caregiving
and/or bereavement.
Although bereavement in the elderly is generally associated with increased
depression6 and weight loss,7
2 opposing hypotheses have been proposed to predict the effects of bereavement
in the context of caregiving: exposure to the chronic stresses of caregiving
depletes the emotional and social resources of caregivers and thus makes them
more vulnerable to negative outcomes when their spouses die; alternatively,
the loss of a disabled spouse may lead to an improvement in mental and physical
health outcomes because of the reduced caregiving burden. Studies addressing
these hypotheses are inconclusive because of a lack of appropriate comparison
groups,8-11
small sample sizes with respect to the number of bereaved cases,10,12
or a focus on select subgroups such as caregivers of patients with the human
immunodeficiency virus.11 In addition, published
studies are often based on retrospective accounts of caregiving involvement.8
The Caregiver Health Effects Study (CHES), an ancillary study of the
Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), a large population-based study of elderly
persons, affords a unique opportunity to examine the effects of bereavement
in the context of caregiving. It has a relatively large sample size (approximately
400 spousal caregivers and 400 matched controls) and measures of quality of
life and physical and psychological health outcomes. In this article we examine
prospectively the effects of spousal death on depression symptoms, antidepressant
medication use, health risk behaviors, and weight as a function of level of
involvement in caregiving prior to death. We examine bereavement effects among
noncaregivers, caregivers who report no strain associated with caregiving,
and caregivers who report strain.
The sample for this ancillary study (CHES) was drawn from the CHS, a
prospective, observational study designed to determine the risk factors for
and consequences of cardiovascular disease in older adults. Beginning in 1989,
a total of 5201 men and women aged 65 years or older were recruited in 4 US
communities: Forsyth County, North Carolina; Washington County, Maryland;
Sacramento County, California; and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Potential
participants were identified from a random sample stratified by age group
(65-74, 75-84, ≥85 years) from the Health Care Financing Administration
Medicare Enrollment lists. Exclusion criteria included being wheelchair bound
in the home, unable to participate in the examination at the field centers,
or undergoing active treatment for cancer. Additional information regarding
sampling and recruitment for the CHS has been published previously.13,14 A supplemental cohort of 687 African
American men and women aged 65 years or older was recruited prior to the fourth
wave of CHS data collection using the same sampling methods.
The CHES ancillary study was initiated following the fourth wave of
CHS data collection (1992-1993) with the goal of recruiting approximately
400 caregivers and 400 noncaregiver controls matched for age and sex. Probable
caregivers were defined as individuals whose spouse had difficulty with at
least 1 activity of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activity of daily living
(IADL) "due to physical or health problems or problems with confusion." The
noncaregiving group included individuals whose spouse did not have any difficulty
with ADLs or IADLs. A total of 819 individuals (caregivers: n = 392; noncaregivers:
n = 427) distributed evenly across the 4 recruitment sites were enrolled into
the CHES study. Beginning in 1993, CHES participants completed 3 annual, in-person,
structured interviews with a trained interviewer. A fourth wave of data was
collected 2 years after the third wave. For this study, individuals who reported
being widowed at wave 2, 3, or 4 were included in the analysis (N = 129).
The CHES participants who had died prior to wave 4 (n = 103) were not included
in these analyses. Additional analyses revealed that the deceased participants
had significantly higher levels of prevalent cardiovascular disease at CHES
baseline, were older, and were more likely to be male. These variables are
included as covariates in the analyses.
Sociodemographic Variables
Four sociodemographic variables were included in the analyses as covariates:
(1) mean (SD) age at the time of entry into the CHES study (80.07 [4.9] years);
(2) race (90% white, 10% nonwhite [mostly African American]); (3) education,
coded as the highest grade of school ever completed (23% had not completed
high school, 32% graduated from high school, 12% had attended some type of
vocational or trade school, and 33% had attended college); and (4) sex (74%
female, 26% male).
Baseline Prevalent Cardiovascular Disease
To adjust for physical health status at the time of entry into the CHES
study, a simple count of the number of 6 prevalent cardiovascular diseases—myocardial
infarction, angina pectoris, congestive heart failure, intermittent claudication,
stroke, and transient ischemic attack—was included as a covariate in
the analyses. Presence of each of the cardiovascular diseases was determined
through varying combinations of medical record confirmation, electrocardiogram
results, physician validation, medication use, and/or history of medical procedures
related to the disease end points (eg, revascularization procedure, lower
extremity bypass/angioplasty).15
Prebereavement Caregiving Status
Caregiving status in the wave prior to the spouse's death was established
on the basis of 3 indicators: (1) the level of spousal disability; (2) the
extent to which participants helped the spouse with tasks related to the disability;
and (3) the level of strain associated with this helping behavior. First,
participants were asked whether their spouse had difficulty with 6 ADL tasks
(eg, eating, dressing) and 6 IADL tasks (eg, housework, shopping) "due to
physical or health problems or problems with confusion." If the participant
reported that the spouse had difficulty with a task, the participant was then
asked a yes or no question: "Do you help your spouse with this task?" This
question was followed by 2 questions about strain associated with helping:
"How much of a mental or emotional strain ["physical strain" in the second
question] is it on you to either provide the help directly, or to arrange
for help to be provided for this activity?" Response options for the questions
about strain were "no strain," "some strain," and "a lot of strain."
Based on the above questions, 3 mutually exclusive caregiving categories
were created. A "noncaregiver" category (n = 40) included people who reported
that their spouse had no difficulty with any of the ADL or IADL tasks (n =
34), as well as individuals who reported that their spouse had difficulty
with at least 1 of the ADL or IADL tasks but did not provide any caregiving
assistance to their spouse (n = 6). Given the small sample size of the latter
group and the fact that they were not providing any caregiving assistance,
we combined these 2 groups into one. A "caregiver-no strain" category (n =
37) included people who reported that (1) their spouse had difficulty with
at least 1 ADL or IADL task; (2) they helped the spouse with at least 1 of
these tasks; and (3) they reported no physical or emotional strain associated
with that helping. Finally, a "caregiver-strain" category (n = 52) included
people who reported that (1) their spouse had difficulty with at least 1 ADL
or IADL task; (2) they helped the spouse with at least 1 of these tasks; and
(3) they reported at least some physical or emotional strain associated with
that helping. This categorization is intended to reflect increasing levels
of caregiving demands,16 which was expected
to moderate the effects of bereavement.
Depression symptoms were assessed using the 10-item version of the Center
for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. The 10-item version
of the CES-D has been found to be highly correlated with the full 20-item
version (r = 0.96) and to have little or no loss
in sensitivity, specificity, or internal reliability.17
Participants respond on a 0 to 3 scale ("rarely or none of the time" to "most
of the time") to statements such as "I felt depressed" using the preceding
week as a time frame. The sum of the 10 items was used as a measure of depression
symptoms. A score of 8 or higher is viewed as placing the individual at risk
for clinical depression.
Antidepressant Medication Use
The CHS protocol requires participants to bring all prescription medications
to the yearly clinic visit. The medications are then recorded and categorized
using a computerized classification algorithm. For the purposes of this analysis,
we examined the proportion of individuals taking tricyclic and nontricyclic
antidepressant medications.
Participants were asked 6 yes or no questions about the following health
risk behaviors: (1) missing at least 1 physician appointment in the last 6
months; (2) not having enough time to go to the physician; (3) not having
enough time to exercise; (4) forgetting to take medication; (5) not getting
enough rest in general; and (6) not being able to slow down and get enough
rest when sick. A simple count of "yes" answers to these questions was used
as a measure of health risk behaviors for analysis.
As part of an annual CHS clinic examination, participants were weighed
by a laboratory technician using a standardized balance-beam scale. Participants
were weighed wearing underwear and an examination sweat suit, but no shoes.
The weight of the examination suit was subtracted when calculating the weight.
Weight was recorded to the nearest 0.5 lb and was rounded down.
All spousal deaths that occurred after baseline and before wave 4 were
included. Data collected at the interview immediately preceding the spouse's
death were used as prebereavement measures, and data collected during the
interview immediately following the death were used as postbereavement measures.
Since the time between prebereavement and postbereavement measures and the
spouse's death varied across participants, 2 time interval variables, based
on dates of the spouse's death and interview dates, were calculated: (1) time
between the collection of prebereavement measures and the death (time before
bereavement), and (2) time between the death and the collection of postbereavement
measures (time since bereavement). Since the amount of time before and since
spousal death may be related to depression symptoms, antidepressant medication
use, health risk behaviors, and weight, these time interval variables were
used as covariates in the primary analysis.
The primary analytic strategy used was a 3 × 2 repeated measures
analysis of covariance with 1 between-subjects factor and 1 within-subjects
factor. Prebereavement caregiving status (noncaregiver, caregiver-no strain,
caregiver-strain) was the between-subjects factor, and time point (before
and after spouse's death) was the within-subjects factor. The major focus
of the analysis was on simple effect tests of time (ie, the death of the spouse)
within the 3 caregiving status groups. The 4 demographic variables (age, sex,
race, and education), the number of prevalent cardiovascular diseases, and
the 2 time interval variables (time before and since bereavement) were used
as covariates. The time intervals between predeath and postdeath data collection
in relation to time of death varied somewhat as a function of the type of
outcome: for depression symptoms, predeath data were collected within 1 year
of the death for most respondents (88%), as were postdeath data (85%). Antidepressant
medication use was assessed within 1 year before the death in 91% of the sample,
and within 1 year following the death in 94% of the sample. The corresponding
figures for the health risk behavior data were 67% (within 1 year predeath)
and 68% (postdeath), and 93% (within 1 year predeath) and 93% (postdeath)
for participant weight. Time intervals varied slightly because of the different
assessment schedules used by CHS and CHES.
Table 1 reports sociodemographic
variables; prevalent cardiovascular disease; and prebereavement and postbereavement
depression symptoms, health risk behavior scores, and weight by prebereavement
caregiving status.
The analysis yielded a significant main effect for prebereavement caregiving
status (F2,116 = 6.33, P = .002) due to
the fact that the caregiver-strain group had higher levels of depression symptoms
than the noncaregiver and caregiver-no strain groups. The main effect for
time was not significant. Most relevant to the central research question,
a significant caregiving status by time interaction was found (F2,116 = 4.78, P = .01). Adjusted means for prebereavement
and postbereavement depression symptoms by group are plotted in Figure 1A. They reveal significant increases in depression symptoms
for the noncaregiver group (4.74 vs 8.25; F1,116 = 14.33, P<.001; mean difference score = 3.52 [95% confidence
interval (CI), 1.68-5.36]), and, to a lesser extent, the caregiver-no strain
group (4.94 vs 7.13; F1,116 = 4.35, P
= .04; mean difference score = 2.19 [95% CI, 0.11-4.27]) but not for the caregiver-strain
group, which remained essentially unchanged (9.44 vs 9.19; P = .76). Another way to interpret the interaction is to note that
significant prebereavement differences in depression symptoms between the
caregiver-strain group and the other groups became nonsignificant by the postbereavement
measurement point. The only significant covariate effect was a main effect
for race (P = .02). African Americans had significantly
lower depression symptom scores than whites, both prebereavement and postbereavement.
There were no main effects for the other covariates (age, sex, education,
cardiovascular disease, and the intervals before and since bereavement) and
there were no significant covariate by time interaction effects.
Follow-up Analyses of Antidepressant Medication Use
Given the differential patterns of CES-D scores before and after the
spouse's death in the caregiving groups, we also carried out follow-up analyses
of the proportions taking tricyclic and nontricyclic antidepressant medications
prebereavement and postbereavement. Logistic regression analyses adjusting
for the covariates showed no effects of caregiving status on tricyclic antidepressant
use either before or after the death of the spouse. The nontricyclic antidepressant
logistic regression analyses also revealed no caregiving status effects prior
to the death of the spouse. However, after adjustment for the covariates and
prebereavement nontricyclic antidepressant use, noncaregivers were significantly
more likely to be using nontricyclic antidepressant medications following
the death than the caregiver-no strain group (chosen as the referent since
use levels were lowest in this group) (odds ratio [OR], 12.85; 95% CI, 1.02-162.13; P = .05). Prebereavement to postbereavement nontricyclic
antidepressant use increased from 5.3% to 17.2% in the noncaregiver group,
5.7% to 9.8% in the caregiver-strain group, and decreased from 3.3% to 2.1%
in the caregiver-no strain group. In sum, these results suggest a slight increase
in the use of nontricyclic antidepressants for noncaregivers, but not for
the caregiving groups. These follow-up analyses should be interpreted cautiously
given the relatively small numbers of participants actually using antidepressant
medications.
The analysis yielded a significant main effect for prebereavement caregiving
status (F2,118 = 12.46, P<.001) due
to the fact that the caregiver-strain group exhibited higher levels of health
risk behaviors than the other groups. The main effect for time was not significant.
As was the case for depression symptoms, the data revealed a significant prebereavement
caregiving status by time interaction (F2,118 = 4.85, P = .009). The prebereavement and postbereavement adjusted means for
the caregiving status groups are plotted in Figure 1B. They reveal a significant drop in health risk behaviors
for the caregiver-strain group following the death of the spouse (1.47 vs
0.66; F1,118 = 20.23, P<.001; mean
difference score = − 0.80 [95% CI, −1.16 to −0.45]), while
the noncaregiver and caregiver-no strain groups showed relatively little change
(0.27 vs 0.27 [P = .99]; 0.46 vs. 0.27 [P = .39], respectively). Similar to the depression symptom results,
significant prebereavement differences in health risk behaviors between the
caregiver-strain group and the other groups became nonsignificant following
the death of the spouse. In terms of the covariates, there were significant
main effects for time prior to (P = .05) and since
bereavement (P = .02) that showed that health risk
behaviors increased the closer the respondent was to the spouse's death. There
was also a significant sex by time interaction (P
= .04), due to the fact that women exhibited more health risk behaviors prior
to the deaths of their spouses, while there was no postbereavement sex difference.
The analysis yielded nonsignificant main effects for both prebereavement
caregiving status and time. In addition, the caregiving status by time interaction
was not significant. However, the simple effect tests of time within the caregiving
status groups revealed different patterns. There was significant weight loss
for the noncaregiver group following the death of the spouse (149.1 vs 145.3;
F1,101 = 8.12, P = .005; mean difference
score = −3.8 [95% CI, −6.4 to −1.1]), but not for the caregiver-no
strain group (156.2 vs 154.0 [P = .12]) or the caregiver-strain
group (156.2 vs 155.2 [P = .41]). The only significant
covariate effect showed that men weighed significantly more than women (P<.001) both before and after the spouse's death.
We conducted follow-up analyses to help clarify the significant interaction
effects for depression symptoms and health risk behaviors, with a focus on
the caregiver-strain group. We compared changes in depression symptoms and
health risk behaviors in the bereaved caregiver strain group with sex- and
age-matched nonbereaved-strained caregivers over an equivalent period of time
(ie, they reported caregiving strain 2 years in a row). In these analyses,
levels of spousal need were assessed by a count of the number of spousal ADL
and IADL difficulties reported, and levels of strain were assessed by a count
of spousal ADL or IADL difficulties for which they reported experiencing emotional
or physical strain at the first measurement point. The analyses included age,
sex, race, education, and number of prevalent cardiovascular diseases at baseline
as covariates. (Time before and since bereavement could not be included as
covariates, and thus adjusted means for the bereaved caregiver-strain group
differ slightly from those reported above.) Results for depression symptoms
are shown in Figure 2A. In contrast
to the bereaved group, continuing strained caregiver depression symptom scores
increased significantly over time (6.75 vs 8.86; t93 = −2.78; P = .007), although continuing
strained caregivers had significantly lower depression symptom scores at the
first measurement point (6.75 vs 9.45; t93
= −2.42, P = .02) when compared with the prebereavement
level of depression symptoms of bereaved caregivers. The latter finding is
consistent with the fact that both initial level of spousal need for ADL and
IADL assistance (4.67 vs 6.49; t100 = −2.74, P = . 007) and initial level of strain (3.59 vs 5.59; t100 = −2.09, P
= .04) among continuing caregivers was significantly lower than prebereavement
levels for the bereaved group. Thus, continuing caregivers were at earlier
stages in the caregiving career (ie, their spouses were less disabled).
A parallel analysis of health risk behaviors, summarized in Figure 2B, showed that while the bereaved
group evidenced a significant decline in such behaviors postbereavement (1.55
vs 0.68; t100 = 4.39, P<.001), the continuing strained caregivers had similar levels at
the 2 time points, although health risk behaviors in this group also declined
slightly (1.13 vs 0.92 [P = .27]).
Consistent with earlier research, our study showed that caregivers who
report caregiving strain have higher levels of depression symptoms and have
worse health practices than noncaregivers or caregivers who report no strain.4,16 This study is the first to clearly
show that following the death of their spouse, strained caregivers had improved
health practices and no further increases in depression symptoms, antidepressant
medication use, or significant weight loss. Overall, these data support the
hypothesis that the death of a spouse among strained caregivers represents
a significant reduction in burden and does not further tax their ability to
cope. In contrast, strained caregivers who remain in the caregiving role report
increasing levels of depression symptoms over time, although they start out
at lower levels of depression symptoms, reflecting the fact that they are
at earlier stages of the caregiving career. These findings should be viewed
in the context of other data we have reported showing that strained caregivers
have an increased risk of mortality.3 Thus,
the most vulnerable caregivers may not be represented in bereaved samples
because they do not outlive their spouse.
A number of mechanisms may contribute to the absence of negative or
generally positive outcomes observed among strained caregivers. First, the
death of the spouse often brings with it an end to the decedent's prior suffering
as well as an end to demanding caregiving tasks. Second, the fact that death
in many cases occurs predictably after a period of disability and decline
enables the caregiver to grieve prior to the death, as well as prepare for
the death and its aftermath. Third, the need for caregiving is likely to mobilize
a familial support system that would already be in place when the death occurs.
The combined effect of these multiple mechanisms may be to attenuate the impact
of the loss and promote adaptive functioning after the death of the spouse.
In contrast to strained caregivers, widowed noncaregivers had increased
depression symptoms and antidepressant medication use, significant weight
loss, but no change in health risk behaviors. The negative effects of bereavement
for this group may be the result of the relatively unpredictable nature of
their spouse's death and the greater disruption of the social environment
associated with these deaths. Caregivers who report no strain occupy a middle
ground between noncaregivers and strained caregivers. They exhibit smaller,
though still significant, increases in depression symptoms and no change in
antidepressant medication use, health risk behaviors, or weight. This may
be expected given the low levels of stress prior to death and the possibility
that they have some opportunity to prepare for their spouse's death.
The scientific study of the effects of caregiving and bereavement have
emerged as 2 important but distinct areas of inquiry. One goal of this study
is to show that bereavement should be viewed in the context of the caregiving
experiences that preceded death, and that caregivers should be followed through
the bereavement experience. Inasmuch as end-of-life experiences for many family
members will increasingly entail elements of caregiving, it is essential that
these experiences be studied together.
These findings have a number of clinical implications. Clinicians should
explore the caregiving experience of the surviving spouse and tailor their
interventions accordingly. Bereaved strained caregivers with significant depression
symptoms should receive treatment with medication and/or psychosocial intervention.
Bereaved noncaregivers should also be monitored for medication use and significant
weight loss, which may place them at risk for significant health decline.
In addition, knowing that depression levels of strained caregivers persist
through the bereavement experience suggests they may be candidates for the
prevention of bereavement depression. Providing indicated medication or counseling
prior to the death of their disabled spouse may help shorten the period of
distress after bereavement.
1.Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Slutsman J, Alpert H, Baldwin D, Emanuel LL. Assistance from family members, friends, paid care givers, and volunteers
in the care of terminally ill patients.
N Engl J Med.1999;341:956-953.Google Scholar 2.Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Slutsman BA, Emanuel LL. Understanding economic and other burdens of terminal illness: the experience
of patients and their caregivers.
Ann Intern Med.2000;132:451-459.Google Scholar 3.Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects
Study.
JAMA.1999;282:2215-2219.Google Scholar 4.Schulz R, O'Brien AT, Bookwala J, Fleissner K. Psychiatric and physical morbidity effects of Alzheimer's disease caregiving:
prevalence correlates and causes.
Gerontologist.1995;35:771-791.Google Scholar 5.Schulz R, Newsom JT, Fleissner K, DeCamp AR, Nieboer AP. The effects of bereavement after family caregiving.
Aging Mental Health.1997;1:269-282.Google Scholar 6.Mendes de Leon CF, Kasl SV, Jacobs S. A prospective study of widowhood and changes in symptoms of depression
in a community sample of the elderly.
Psychol Med.1994;24:613-624.Google Scholar 7.Rosenbloom CA, Whittington FJ. The effects of bereavement on eating behaviors and nutrient intakes
in elderly widowed persons.
J Gerontol.1993;48:S223-S229.Google Scholar 8.Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Given CW, Given B. Predictors of postbereavement depressive symptomatology among family
caregivers of cancer patients.
Support Care Cancer.1997;5:53-60.Google Scholar 9.McHorney CA, Mor V. Predictors of bereavement depression and its health services consequences.
Med Care.1988;26:882-893.Google Scholar 10.Mullan JT. The bereaved caregiver: a prospective study of changes in well-being.
Gerontologist.1992;32:673-683.Google Scholar 11.Park CL, Folkman S. Stability and change in psychosocial resources during caregiving and
bereavement in partners of men with AIDS.
J Pers.1997;65:421-447.Google Scholar 12.Bodnar JC, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Caregiving depression after bereavement: chronic stress isn't over
when it's over.
Psychol Aging.1994;9:372-380.Google Scholar 13.Fried LP, Borhani NO, Enright P.
et al. The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale.
Ann Epidemiol.1991;1:263-276.Google Scholar 14.Tell GS, Fried LP, Hermanson B.
et al. Recruitment of adults 65 years and older as participants in the Cardiovascular
Health Study.
Ann Epidemiol.1993;3:358-366.Google Scholar 15.Psaty BM, Kuller LH, Bild D.
et al. Methods of assessing prevalent cardiovascular disease in the Cardiovascular
Health Study.
Ann Epidemiol.1995;5:270-277.Google Scholar 16.Schulz R, Newsom J, Mittelmark M, Burton L, Hirsch C, Jackson S. Health effects of caregiving: the Caregiver Health Effects Study: an
ancillary study of the Cardiovascular Health Study.
Ann Behav Med.1997;19:110-116.Google Scholar 17.Shrout PA, Yager TJ. Reliability and validity of screening scales: effects of reducing scale
length.
J Clin Epidemiol.1989;42:69-78.Google Scholar