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

Table 5 Results of the multiple regression analyses with emotional, behavioral and cognitive public caregiver stigma as outcomes, stratified by caregiver’s gender, with caregiver’s working status as main independent variables and adjusted for the sociodemographic background of the participants

Outcome variables	Devaluing feelings		Appreciative feelings		Regretful and anxious feelings		Social distance		Accusing statements		Devaluing statements		Appreciative statements
Outcome variables	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male
Models	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)	(14)
Caregiver’s working status (Ref. no, non-working)	−0.04	−0.05	0.09	0.10	0.08	0.04	−0.11+	−0.10+	−0.02	−0.02	−0.00	0.00	0.14**	0.07
	(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	1.93***	1.58***	3.11***	3.29***	3.22***	3.07***	2.18***	2.08***	2.07***	1.88***	2.31***	1.95***	3.97***	4.11***
	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.16)	(0.17)	(0.19)	(0.22)	(0.14)	(0.16)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.16)	(0.14)	(0.14)
Observations	525	503	522	505	526	505	527	506	524	503	527	505	528	505
R²	0.095	0.034	0.091	0.042	0.067	0.061	0.028	0.023	0.012	0.020	0.045	0.039	0.083	0.068

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

ISSN: 1471-2458