Page 70 - IJPS-8-1

International Journal of
Population Studies Intergenerational relationships and caregiving burden

matched our research focus. In addition, regarding sample O’Connell, Branger, et al., 2020; Liu and Bern-Klug, 2016;
site and size, three studies were based on data from China Lopez-Anuarbe and Kohli, 2019; Wu, Liu, Cao, et al., 2021).
(Lin, Chen, and Li, 2012; Liu and Bern-Klug, 2016; Wu, One study used burden as a predictor variable for caregiver
Liu, Cao, et al., 2021), and some studies used a national depression (Lin, Chen, and Li, 2012), whereas another
database (Liu and Bern-Klug, 2016; Lopez-Anuarbe and study viewed burden as both an outcome and a predictor
Kohli, 2019; Wu, Liu, Cao, et al., 2021). factor in the dyadic relationship (Queluz, de Santis, de
Fatima Kirchner, et al., 2022). Regarding measurement
3.2. Relevant theoretical framework tools, four studies used or partially used the Zarit Burden
The majority of studies in our review did not adopt a well- Interview (ZBI) to measure caregiver burden (Enright,
established conceptual framework. However, the Pearlin’s O’Connell, Branger, et al., 2020; Liu and Bern-Klug, 2016;
Stress Process Model (Pearlin, Mullan, Semple, et al., Queluz, de Santis, de Fatima Kirchner, et al., 2022; Wu,
1990) was used in Liu and Bern-Klug’s study (2016). In the Liu, Cao, et al., 2021). This scale was developed by Zarit
Pearlin’s Stress Process Model, secondary stressors refer in the 1980s to evaluate the caregiver burden of dementia
to stressful experiences triggered by primary stressors. patients and is composed of 22 items, with a total score
This model indicated that the psychosocial resources of range of 0 – 88 (higher scores indicate heavier caregiver
caregivers, like the closeness with the care recipients, may burden) (Zarit, Orr and Zarit, 1985). Other scales included
influence the secondary stressors. the Burden Assessment Scale (BAS), the Caregiver Burden
Inventory (CBI), and the Caregiver Strain Index (CSI).
In addition, the study by Lopez-Anuarb and Kohli Only one study used a binary question rather than a scale
(2019) was based on the caregiving stress appraisal model to confirm whether caregivers had emotional/financial/
(Yates, Tennstedt, and Chang, 1999), which draws on physical burdens (Lopez-Anuarbe and Kohli, 2019).
both the Stress Process Model developed by Pearlin et al. In conclusion, in most of these studies, the researchers
(Pearlin, Mullan, Semple, et al., 1990) and the Appraisal tended to assess caregiver burden from a comprehensive
Model proposed by Lawton et al. (Lawton, Kleban, Moss, et perspective, including subjective burden and objective
al., 1989; Lawton, Moss, Kleban, et al., 1991). The Appraisal burden.
Model relates how caregivers appraise stressful situations
with their reactions to them. Therefore, if the caregiver On the other hand, the tools measuring intergenerational
feels that his/her personal and family relationship with relationships were more diverse. For the following analysis,
the recipient is positive and in line with his/her caregiver measurements have been divided into three categories
duties, family roles, and available resources, his/her burden based on the solidarity perspective and conflict perspective:
will be easier to bear and may be lower. Structural-associational solidarity, affectual solidarity, and
intergenerational conflict.
Another study (Lin, Chen, and Li, 2012) was based
on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 3.3.1. Structural-associational solidarity
1989). Based on COR, the threat of resource loss becomes Queluz et al. (2022) used the Dyadic Relationship Scale,
a stressor for the individual, which will give rise to which includes a subscale of positive interaction, including
psychological distress. In contrast, an individual who has items such as “I learned good things about him/her” and
sufficient resources is better at meeting challenges and “communication between us has improved.” The study by
preventing negative influences from stress. Therefore, Aires et al. (2017) also explored the role of care behaviors
positive parent-child relationships will improve caregivers’ in affecting the overload of caregivers, such as instrumental
psychological resources that help mitigate the stress support (ADLS/IADLS), emotional support, financial
of caring, while negative relationships will consume support, keeping company, and visits.
caregivers’ resources and lead to stress.
3.3.2. Affectual solidarity
3.3. Tools for caregiver burden and Two studies (Liu and Bern-Klug, 2016; Wu, Liu, Cao, et al.,
intergenerational relationships
2021) used a single question in the CLHLS questionnaire
This systematic review tries to unravel the relationship to evaluate caregivers’ perception of emotional closeness
between intergenerational relationships and caregiver between adult children and older parents. In addition,
burden, so we further explored how researchers have Enright et al. (2020) used the Burns Relationship
operationalized these two concepts. Six studies used Satisfaction Scale (BRSS), which consists of 13 items that
caregiver burden as an outcome variable in their studies assess satisfaction in various areas of the relationship (i.e.,
(Aires, Mocellin, Fengler, et al., 2017; del-Pino-Casado, handling finances and degree of affection and caring). The
Millán-Cobo, Palomino-Moral, et al., 2014; Enright, total scores are the sum of the items and range from 0 to

Volume 8 Issue 1 (2022) 64 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v8i1.1320