Personal support networks and informal care: differences by sex and place? (CUIDAR-SE II study)

3Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the composition and functionality of social support of personal networks of caregivers of Granada and Gipuzkoa (Spain) according to sex and province. Method: Cross-sectional study with personal network analysis methodology. A sample of 66 caregivers segmented by sex in each province was selected. We collected variables of composition, functional and relational content in social support of 1,650 personal relationships of the networks studied. The EgoNet software was used for the collection, analysis and graphic representation of the networks. The association of the characteristics of the network with sex (of the caregivers and those who make up their networks) was measured, using Chi-square. The links within the networks were analyzed. Results: The networks of caregivers in Granada are more feminized than those in Gipuzkoa. The women of Gipuzkoa have less familiar networks than those of Granada and with a greater number of relationships among the people who support them. They also have more support from men than women in all the tasks analyzed, except in attention to the disease. In both provinces, male caregivers show in their networks more women who help in specific care tasks than men. Only in activities outside the home in Granada there are more men who help than women (76.1% vs. 57%; p = 0.026). Conclusion: Gender differences between provinces can be seen in the composition of the networks and in the way in which men and women receive and offer support in care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rodríguez-Madrid, M. N., Del Río-Lozano, M., Fernández-Peña, R., Elizalde-Sagardia, B., & García-Calvente, M. del M. (2021). Personal support networks and informal care: differences by sex and place? (CUIDAR-SE II study). Gaceta Sanitaria, 35(6), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.05.011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free