Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of the multiple regression analyses with emotional, behavioral, and cognitive public caregiver stigma as outcomes, stratified by caregiver’s working status, with caregiver’s gender as main independent variables and adjusted for the sociodemographic background of the participants

From: Are informal family caregivers stigmatized differently based on their gender or employment status?: a German study on public stigma towards informal long-term caregivers of older individuals

Outcome variables

Devaluing feelings

Appreciative feelings

Regretful and anxious feelings

Social distance

Accusing statements

Devaluing statements

Appreciative statements

working

non-working

working

non-working

working

non-working

working

non-working

working

non-working

working

non-working

working

non-working

Model

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Caregiver’s gender (Ref. female)

0.02

0.01

−0.04

−0.01

− 0.02

0.00

0.14*

0.11+

0.04

0.05

0.02

0.00

−0.10+

−0.01

 

(0.04)

(0.04)

(0.07)

(0.07)

(0.08)

(0.08)

(0.06)

(0.06)

(0.06)

(0.06)

(0.06)

(0.06)

(0.05)

(0.06)

Constant

1.63***

1.81***

3.19***

3.30***

2.94***

3.41***

1.97***

2.08***

1.83***

2.07***

1.95***

2.32***

4.12***

4.11***

 

(0.10)

(0.10)

(0.17)

(0.16)

(0.20)

(0.20)

(0.15)

(0.16)

(0.14)

(0.15)

(0.16)

(0.16)

(0.13)

(0.14)

Observations

515

513

512

515

514

517

516

517

511

516

516

516

516

517

R2

0.071

0.076

0.048

0.076

0.058

0.068

0.037

0.022

0.027

0.016

0.026

0.054

0.055

0.066

  1. Unstandardized regression coefficients and robust standard errors in parentheses. Emotional reactions to informal caregiving (devaluing feelings, appreciative feelings, regretful and anxious feelings) Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher agreement with the emotions; behavioral reactions to informal caregiving (social distance) Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher social distance; cognitive reactions to informal caregiving (accusing statements, devaluing statements, appreciative statements) Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher agreement with the statements. Sociodemographic information on the participants was included as covariates (age, gender, education, and marital status). Level of significance: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10