MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post‐stroke depression – effect on the life situation of the significant other

2006· article· en· W1970589955 on OpenAlexaff
Åsa Franzén‐Dahlin, Ewa Billing, Per Näsman, Björn Mårtensson, Regina Wredling, Veronica Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersMarcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfondStockholms Läns LandstingMarcus Foundation
KeywordsDepression (economics)Stroke (engine)AngerActivities of daily livingRating scalePsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to describe the life situation among 'significant others' to patients with post-stroke depression, and to identify associations between the life situation of the significant others and patient characteristics. Seventy-one dyads consisting of patients with a diagnosed post-stroke depression and their significant others were included. The patients were assessed for depression with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and diagnosed according to the DSM-IV. The assessments of significant others included their own life situation and proxy assessments of the patients' state of depression, anger, change of personality, and need of assistance. Significant others of male stroke patients reported a more negative impact on their life situation, than did significant others of female stroke patients (p = 0.04). There was a significant association between the patient's level of depression and physical function [activities of daily living (ADL)], with those with less impaired ADL having more major depression than those with more impaired ADL (p = 0.007). This study indicates that major post-stroke depression is more common among patients with limited functional deficits. This highlights the importance of assessment for depression also among seemingly recovered stroke patients in order to treat and support those in need. This study also stresses the importance of identifying different needs of the significant others in order to provide appropriate support in their caregiving role.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Caring SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207