Archives of Public Health

Table 4 Subgroup analysis in the China family panel studies 2016, 2018,2020

From: Impact of informal caregiving on caregivers’ subjective well-being in China: a longitudinal study

Variables	Subjective wellbeing
Variables	Female		Male		Urban		Rural
Informal caregiving	0.829^*** (0.053)		0.895 (0.091)		0.874^** (0.063)		0.869^*** (0.044)
Low-frequency of care		0.914 (0.150)		0.903 (0.105)		0.998 (0.142)		0.811 (0.130)
High-frequency of care		0.761^* (0.124)		0.882 (0.125)		0.791^* (0.106)		0.733^*** (0.113)
Observations	8,333	8,333	10,931	10,931	10,151	10,151	9,113	9,113
Variables	Married		Unmarried		Working		Not working
Informal caregiving	0.887^** (0.035)		0.925 (0.144)		0.809^*** (0.072)		0.887 (0.314)
Low-frequency of care		0.896 (0.103)		0.995 (0.188)		0.824^* (0.086)		0.653 (0.603)
High-frequency of care		0.847^* (0.087)		0.818^** (0.099)		0.788^** (0.093)		0.542 (0.242)
Observations	14,417	14,417	4,847	4,847	16,722	16,722	2,542	2,542
Variables	Living with parents				Not living with parents
Informal caregiving	0.852^* (0.072)				0.673^*** (0.196)
Low-frequency of care			0.873 (0.086)				0.882 (0.200)
High-frequency of care			0.821^* (0.092)				0.305^*** (0.352)
Observations	18,470		18,470		794		794

Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Odds Ratio are reported and robust standard errors are in brackets. These models controlled for the dummy variables of year and province. The dummy variables of year and province and other variables shown in Table 3 are controlled in all regressions

Back to article page

ISSN: 2049-3258

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com