==== Front
Innov Aging
Innov Aging
innovateage
Innovation in Aging
2399-5300 Oxford University Press US 

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1132
igaa057.1132
Abstracts
Session 2944 (Poster)
Caregiving I (BSS)
AcademicSubjects/SOC02600
Partner Effects on Depressed Mood in Caregiving Dyads Are Most Pronounced in Cancer Caregiving, Partner Caregiving
Nassar Nadia Al  Litzelman Kristin  
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States
2020 
16 12 2020 
16 12 2020 
4 Suppl 1 Program Abstracts from The GSA 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting “Turning 75: Why Age Matters”352 352
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.2020This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Abstract
Theory and empirical evidence indicate that the well-being of caregivers and their care recipients is interrelated, although conflicting evidence has emerged across different caregiving populations. To establish a more nuanced understanding of this phenomenon, we used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Survey and the National Survey on Caregivers (2015 and 2017, n=759 dyads with complete longitudinal data) to construct actor-partner interdependence models assessing how spillover of depression varies by care recipient health condition (cancer, dementia, stroke, diabetes, or other conditions) and relationship type (spouse/partner, child, or other). Across condition types, the largest magnitude partner effects were observed in dyads with cancer, in which a one-point increase in caregiver depressed mood was associated with a 0.23-point increase in subsequent care recipient depressed mood (p=0.02) and a one-point increase in care recipient depressed mood was associated with a 0.33-point increase in subsequent caregiver depressed mood (p<0.01). Moderation by cancer status was statistically significant (pinteraction=0.03). Among spouse/partner caregivers, caregivers’ depressed mood was associated with subsequent depressed mood in the care recipient (p<0.05) but there was no evidence of spillover from the care recipient to the caregiver. Conversely, in both adult child caregivers and other caregivers, there was evidence for spillover from the care recipient to the caregiver (p<0.05) but not the reverse. The findings show that the interrelationship in the well-being of caregivers and care recipients varies by key caregiving characteristics, with implications for the development, dissemination, and implementation of interventions targeting caregiver, care recipient, and dyadic well-being.