Problems of New Caregivers of Persons with Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine adult caregivers new to the role of caring for persons with stroke, upon discharge from rehabilitation centers in Ohio and Michigan and living farther away from formalized support services than urban caregivers, were enrolled for 3 months in a Web-based intervention project that examined the feasibility of the intervention and described the experience of caring. This article is an analysis of qualitative data from the intervention project that used a rigorous protocol to examine 68 perceived problems reported in caring. Problem themes in order of most to least frequent were 1) having independence issues, 2) dealing with emotions, 3) living with physical limitations, 4) managing co-morbid conditions, 5) balancing it all, 6) participating in physical therapy, and 7) having sleeping issues. These problems were related to four of Orem's universal self-care requisites. Although the total number of problems decreased over time, "balancing it all" was the only problem that increased. This may be due to the resumption of the caregivers' regular activities or increased caregiving responsibilities. Nurses could use these findings to identify and focus on self-care needs of caregivers and to implement problem-resolution strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".