Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:05:01.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intra-couple Caregiving of Older Adults Living Apart Together: Commitment and Independence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Jenny De Jong Gierveld
Jenny De Jong Gierveld*
Affiliation:
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI-KNAW), Groningen University
*
†La correspondance et les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à: / Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to: Jenny de Jong Gierveld, Ph.D. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI-KNAW)/ Groningen University P.O. Box 11650 2502 AR The Hague The Netherlands ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, rising numbers of mid-life and older adults are starting a “living apart together” (LAT) relationship following divorce or widowhood. LAT describes an intimate relationship wherein partners maintain separate households. This study investigated the characteristics of care arrangements in older long-term LAT couples and elicited personal comments about intra-couple care. We interviewed 25 LAT partners and a comparison group of 17 remarried older adults in the Netherlands in a side study of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study. Results showed that about half of the LAT partners intended to exchange care if needed (partnership commitment); the other half had ambiguous feelings or intentions to refuse care (independence orientation). However, for those LAT partners already confronted with illness in their current relationship, all provided care to the partner in need. The minority of LAT partners who would not exchange care reciprocally are more likely to give as opposed to receive care.

Résumé

Récemment, un nombre accroîssant d’adultes d’âge mûr ou plus agés se lancent dans des relations de “vivre ensemble séparément” après le divorce ou pendant le veuvage. Un "VES" est une relation intime dans laquelle les partenaires maintiennent domiciles séparées. Cette étude a examiné les types de soins pour les couples VES plus âgés et à long terme, et a dévoilé des commentaires personnels au sujet des soins pour ces couples. Nous avons interrogé 25 VES partenaires et aussi avons interrogé un groupe de comparaison de 17 personnes âgées qui se sont remariées dans les Pays-Bas, à travers une étude ancillaire à la Panel Study Pays-Bas parenté (PSP-BP). Les résultats ont révelé qu’environ la moitié de ces partenaires VES a l’intention d’ échanger des soins si nécessaire (engagement du partenariat); l’autre moitié a éprouvé des sentiments ambigus, ou avait l’intention de refuser des soins (l’orientation indépendante). Toutefois, pour les partenaires VES déjà confrontés aux maladies dans leur relation actuelle, tous ont soigné partenaires dans leur besoin. La minorité de partenaires VES qui ne voulait pas échanger réciproquement les soins sont plus susceptibles de donner, plutôt que de recevoir, des soins.

Keywords

agingLAT relationshipscaregivingindependenceolder adultsvieillissementVES relationssoinsindépendanceadultes plus âgés (aînés)
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 34 , Special Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 356 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, G. (2008). Flexibility, friendship and family. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Cross-Barnet, C., Cherlin, A., & Burton, L. (2011). Bound by children: Intermittent cohabitation and living together apart. Family Relations, 60(5), 633–647.Google Scholar
de Jong Gierveld, J. (2002). The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and women entering new intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27(4), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: Partner relationships following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Merz, E. M. (2013). Parents’ partnership decision making after divorce or widowhood: The role of (step) children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1098–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2012). Legal rights for people who ‘Live Apart Together’? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34(4), 443–458.Google Scholar
Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs) –How different are they? The Sociological Review, 58(1), 112–134.Google Scholar
Duncan, S., Phillips, M., Carter, J., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2014). Practices and perceptions of living apart together. Family Science, 5(1), 359–368.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T., Komter, A., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2005). Codebook of the Netherlands kinship panel study: A multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 1. The Hague, the Netherlands: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2007). Codebook of the Netherlands kinship panel study, a multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 2. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.Google Scholar
Finch, J. (2007). Displaying families. Sociology, 41(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, L. M., & Kobayashi, K. M. (published online April 7 2014). From motivations to accounts: An interpretive analysis of “Living Apart Together” relationships in mid- to later-life couples. Journal of Family Issues. Retrieved on April 15, 2014 from http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/06/0192513X14529432.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Government of Alberta. (2010). Aging population policy framework. Executive Summary. Retrieved May 25, 2015 from www.seniors.alberta.ca/documents/Aging-Population-Framework-2010-Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Grootegoed, E., Van Barneveld, E., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2015). What is customary about customary care? How Dutch welfare policy defines what citizens have to consider ‘normal’ care at home. Critical Social Policy, 35(1), 110–131.Google Scholar
Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere; living-apart-together, LAT. Population Trends, 122, 35–45.Google Scholar
Karlsson, S., Johansson, S., Gerdner, A., & Borell, K. (2007). Caring while living apart. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49(4), 3–27.Google Scholar
Keating, N. C., Otfinowski, P., Wenger, C., Fast, J. E., & Derksen, L. (2003). Understanding the caring capacity of informal networks of frail seniors: a case for care networks. Ageing and Society, 23(1), 115–127.Google Scholar
Koren, C. (published online April 8 2014). The intertwining of second couplehood and old age. Ageing and Society . Retrieved April 19, 2014 from http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0144686X14000294.Google Scholar
Koren, C., & Lipman-Schiby, S. (2014). “Not a replacement”: Emotional experiences and practical consequences of Israeli second couplehood stepfamilies constructed in old age. Journal of Aging Studies, 31, 70–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapierre, T. A., & Keating, N. C. (2013). Characteristics and contributions of non-kin carers of older people: a closer look at friends and neighbours. Ageing & Society, 33(8), 1442–1468.Google Scholar
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 837–857.Google Scholar
Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 929–942.Google Scholar
Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52(2), 223–240.Google Scholar
Milan, A., & Peters, A. (2003). Couples living apart. Canadian Social Trends, 69, 2–6.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, H., & Martikainen, P. (2009). Nonmarital cohabitation among older Finnish men and women: Socioeconomic characteristics and forms of union dissolution. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64B(4), 507–516.Google Scholar
Noël-Miller, C. M. (2011). Partner caregiving in older cohabiting couples. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 66(3), 341–353.Google Scholar
Öberg, P., & Bildtgard, T. (2014). Diversity of union forms and importance for well-being in later life. Poster presented at the GSA Conference, November 5–9, 2014; Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Or, O. (2013). Midlife women in second partnerships choosing living apart together: An Israeli case study. Israel Studies Review, 28(2), 41–60.Google Scholar
Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: Not simply families of ‘fate’ or ‘choice’. Current Sociology, 52(2), 199–221.Google Scholar
Pavolini, E., & Ranci, C. (2008). Restructuring the welfare state: reforms in long-term care in Western European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 246–259.Google Scholar
Régnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, É., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in a couple: A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21(4), 75–108.Google Scholar
Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of intimacy and care beyond’ ‘the family’: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current Sociology, 52(2), 135–159.Google Scholar
Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72(3), 557–575.Google Scholar
Sherman, C. W. (2012). Remarriage as context for dementia caregiving: Implications of positive support and negative interactions for caregiver well-being. Research in Human Development, 9(2), 165–182.Google Scholar
Spencer, L., & Pahl, R. (2006). Rethinking friendship: Hidden solidarities today. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, N. (2002). Re-engaging: New partnerships in late-life widowhood. Ageing International, 27(4), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strohm, C. Q., Seltzer, J., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2009). “Living Apart Together” relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, 21(7), 177–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turcotte, M. (2013). Insights on Canadian society: Living apart together. Statistics Canada (Vol. 75-006-X).Google Scholar
Upton-Davis, K. (2015). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living apart together for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(1), 104–116.Google Scholar
van den Broek, T., Dykstra, P. A., & van der Veen, R. J. (2015). Care ideals in the Netherlands: Shifts between 2002 and 2011. Canadian Journal on Aging, 34(3), 268–281.Google Scholar