Changes in Attitudes Toward Aging,Older People and Elder Care From the Perspective of Former Migrant Care Workers

Abstract

Research on migrant home care workers has focused mainly on working conditions in the recipient countries and on the relationships between care recipients and their family members. However, because migrant care workers often are transnational, going back and forth between countries, some return to their home country, bringing with them newly acquired attitudes and practices. Based on a theoretical model of the transfer of innovation, this study aims to explore changes in attitudes toward aging and elder care among former migrant care workers. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews with migrant care workers who permanently returned to Lithuania. Data were analyzed thematically. Findings revealed changes in workers’ perceptions of aging, including perceptions of their own old age, older people, and elder care. These changes were mainly attributed to their personal connections and encounters with different cultural attitudes and practices in the host country. Our findings indicate that returning migrant home care workers may act as potential innovators who bring back to their home country new ideas about aging and elder care.

Keywords

attitudes toward aging migrant care workers care chain elder care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(2000). Doing the dirty work? The global politics of domestic labour. Zed.

Anderson

(2001). Different roots in common ground: Transnationalism and migrant domestic workers in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830120090449

Asis

M. M.

(2006). Living with migration: Experiences of left-behind children in the Philippines. Asian Population Studies, 2(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730600700556

Ayalon

(2009a). Evaluating the working conditions and exposure to abuse of filipino home care workers in Israel: Characteristics and clinical correlates. International Psychogeriatrics, 21(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610208008090

Ayalon

(2009b). Family and family-like interactions in households with round-the-clock paid foreign carers in Israel. Aging and Society, 29(5), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X09008393

Ayalon

(2021). The global care network and its impact on sending and receiving countries: Current knowledge and future directions. Aging and Society, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000027.

Ayalon

Green

(2015). Live-in versus live-out home care in Israel: Satisfaction with services and caregivers’ outcomes. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 628. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt122

Baldock

C. V.

(2000). Migrants and their parents: Caregiving from a distance. Journal of Family Issues, 21(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021002004

Baldock

C. V.

(2003). Long-distance migrants and family support: A Dutch case study. Health Sociology Review, 12(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.12.1.45

10.

Bengtson

Giarrusso

Mabry

J. B.

Silverstein

(2002). Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(3), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00568.x

11.

Bettio

Simonazzi

Villa

(2006). Change in care regimes and female migration: The ‘care drain’in the Mediterranean. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706065598

12.

Birka

(2019). Can return migration revitalize the Baltics? Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania engage their diasporas, with mixed results. Migration Policy Institute. Available online at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/can-return-migration-revitalize-baltics-estonia-latvia-and-lithuania-engage-their-diasporas [Accessed 2021-11-04]

13.

Blažienė

Žalimienė

(2020). Between user’s expectations and provider’s quality of work: The future of elderly care in Lithuania. Population Ageing, 13, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-017-9215-1.

14.

Browne

C. V.

Braun

K. L.

(2008). Globalization, women’s migration, and the long-term-care workforce. The Gerontologist, 48(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/48.1.16

15.

Choudhury

(2016). Return migration and geography of innovation in MNEs: A natural experiment of knowledge production by local workers reporting to return migrants. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(3), 585–610. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv025

16.

Franzosa

Tsui

E. K.

(2020). Professional, friend or family?: How home care companies sell emotional care. Journal of Women & Aging, 32(4), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2020.1763894

17.

Gedvilaitė-Kordušienė

(2013). Gyventojų Senėjimas Ir Jo Iššūkiai: Suaugusių Vaikų Pareigos Pagyvenusiems Tėvams Lietuvoje [population aging and its challenges: Filial responsibilities for elderly parents in Lithuania]. Lietuvos Statistikos Darbai [Lithuanian Journal of Statistics], 52(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.15388/LJS.2013.13920

18.

Groger

Kinney

(2007). CCRC here we come! Reasons for moving to a continuing care retirement community. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 20(4), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/J081v20n04_06

19.

Isaksen

L. W.

Devi

S. U.

Hochschild

A. R.

(2008). Global care crisis: A problem of capital, care chain, or commons? American Behavioral Scientist, 52(3), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208323513

20.

Kaelin

(2011). Care drain: The political making of health worker migration. Journal of Public Health Policy, 32(4), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2011.43

21.

Kasnauskienė

Vebraite

(2014). The impact of migration on Lithuanian economy in an ageing society context. International Journal of Business and Management, 2(4), 31-42.

22.

Kazlauskienė

Rinkevičius

(2006). Lithuanian “brain drain” causes: Push and pull factors. Engineering Economics, 46(1), 27–37

23.

Kodwo-Nyameazea

Nguyen

P. V.

(2008). Immigrants and long-distance elder care: An exploratory study. Aging International, 32(4), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12126-008-9013-4

24.

Lazutka

Poviliunas

Zalimiene

(2018). ESPN thematic report on challenges in long-term care: Lithuania. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=catId=22&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0

25.

Marcinskowska

(2010). The Lithuanian long-term care system. ENEPRI Research Report No. 82. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/122412/Lithuania.pdf.

26.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldana

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publication.

27.

Montanari

Saberi

(2010). The spread of innovations in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(47), 20196–20201. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004098107

28.

Parreñas

R. S.

(2001). Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies, 27(2), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178765

29.

Peng

(2017). Transnational migration of domestic and care workers in Asia Pacific. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/publications/WCMS_547228/lang--en/index.htm.

30.

Piperno

(2007). From care drain to care gain: Migration in Romania and Ukraine and the rise of transnational welfare. Development, 50(4), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100431

31.

Poškutė

Greve

(2017). Long‐term care in Denmark and Lithuania–A most dissimilar case. Social Policy & Administration, 51(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12318

32.

Rapolienė

(2015a). Aging identity: Do theories match experiences? Corvinus Journal ofSociology and Social Policy, 6(1), 3–24. https: doi.org/10.14267/cjssp.2015.01.01

33.

Rapolienė

(2015b). Old age stigmatization. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 4(1), 63–81.

34.

Rowe

J. W.

Kahn

R. L.

(1997). Successful Aging. The Gerontologist, 37(4), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/37.4.433

35.

Sternberg

Müller

(2005). Return migration in regional innovation systems. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13(2), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2005.9668609

36.

Tamutienė

Naujanienė

(2013). Senyvo amžiaus asmenų socialinių paslaugų prieinamumo namuose patirtys. Tiltai, 4(65), 63-78.

37.

Thaut

(2009). EU integration & emigration consequences: The case of Lithuania. International Migration, 47(1), 191–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2008.00501.x

38.

Venturini

Montobbio

Fassio

(2012). Are migrants spurring innovation? RSCAS working papers 2012/11. European University Institute, https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2012-11.html

39.

Vullnetari

King

(2008). ‘Does your granny eat grass?’On mass migration, care drain and the fate of older people in rural Albania. Global Networks, 8(2), 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2008.00189.x

40.

Zaiceva

Zimmermann

K. F.

(2016). Returning home at times of trouble? Return migration of EU enlargement migrants during the crisis. In Labor migration, EU enlargement, and the great recession (pp. 397–418). Springer.

41.

Žalimienė

(2019). Pagyvenusių asmenų lūkesčiai formuojant socialinių paslaugų politiką technologijų plėtros kontekste [expectations of elder people in social services policy formation in the context of technological development], 11th national Lithuanian sociological conference „sociologija be ribų: Anapus žmogiškumo“ [sociology without borders: Beside humanity”] VU. Vilnius.