Characterizing complex care relationships in Canada using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Most caregiving research and policy has focused on dyadic, unidirectional relationships with one caregiver and one care receiver despite evidence for more complex caring relationships. OBJECTIVE: To describe caregivers and care receivers' relationships, with a focus on non-dyadic relationships, using baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed unweighted baseline CLSA data to describe different self-reported care relationships. Care relationships of interest included: a) spousal reciprocal relationships, b) care chains, where one person receives and gives care with separate individuals, c) care caravans, where one person receives care from multiple caregivers, and d) compound caregivers, where one person provides care to multiple care receivers. We estimated frequencies for categorical variables, and either means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. RESULTS: Our sample included 51,338 CLSA participants. Of these respondents, 39% identified as a caregiver (mean age 62, 54% women), 6.5% identified as a care receiver (mean age 65, 58% women), and 5.3% identified as both a caregiver and care receiver (mean age 63, 65% women). Our research showed that 40% of caregivers reported giving care to 2 or more receivers and 52% of care receivers reported receiving care from 2 or more caregivers. Individuals both receiving and giving care demonstrated the following relationships: compound care chains (73%), care chains (19%), and reciprocal spousal care (4.6%). Gender characterization showed women had a wider range of care partners and were more likely to identify as caregivers and care receivers. While spouse and first degree relatives were the most commonly reported caregivers, friends and others were a large proportion of reported caregivers. CONCLUSION: We found that a large proportion of caregiving relationships were best described as a network that frequently included multiple caregivers, multiple care receivers, and some in both roles, as well as non-kin and extended relative participants. This characterization of care relationships allows us to better understand the needs of older adults and their caregivers as the population ages and care shifts towards aging-in-place strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».