MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939935372

Sons as sole caregivers for their elderly parents. How do they cope?

2000· article· en· W1939935372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara V Thompson, Fred Tudiver, JoAnn Manson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationScope (computer science)Qualitative researchMedicineSample (material)NursingFamily caregiversPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the experiences of men who are sole caregivers for their elderly parents. DESIGN: Semistructured in-depth interviews. SETTING: Family practice clinic attached to a large tertiary care centre in north central Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 10 men who identified themselves as sole caregivers in that they had no particular women assisting them with caregiving. METHOD: Interviews were analyzed by standard qualitative methods. MAIN FINDINGS: Emerging themes were the spectrum of caregiving, the experience of caregiving, and the use of formal support systems. Scope of care varied from very little to total care, including personal care. Participants described positive and negative aspects of and the nature of their relationships with those for whom they cared. Avoiding institutionalization was seen as positive; effects on work and social life were negative. Use of more than homemaking services was associated with previous hospitalization; participants complained about difficulties accessing services. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of sons' relationships with their parents and the amount of time they have available can predict how much caregiving they can undertake. Information about community support services is not readily accessible to these men.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207