The Association Between Caregiver Burden and Caregiver Health-Related Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden experienced by family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) affects the caregivers' overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Assessing the influence on HRQOL is an integral part of determining the efficacy and economic attractiveness of interventions for AD. Generic preference-weighted instruments such as the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) are recommended for measuring HRQOL for cost-effectiveness studies. However, these instruments focus on physical attributes and have not been tested in an AD caregiver population. We administered the HUI2 to a population of 679 caregivers to people with AD at 13 community and institutional sites in the United States. We also administered the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), a caregiver time questionnaire, and a caregiver burden instrument. The mean global HUI2 utility score for caregivers was 0.87 and varied little by the affected person's setting of care and AD stage (range, 0.86-0.89; p > 0.2). The caregiver burden scales all varied by the affected person's setting of care, and some also varied by disease severity. The mental health component summary score of the SF-36 for caregivers varied across both disease stage and setting. Caregiver time increased for caregivers of AD-affected persons with more severe cognitive impairment. Generic preference-weighted instruments may not adequately capture differences in the burden of caregivers of those with AD. The development of condition-specific preference-weighted instruments may provide the means to better estimate HRQOL in AD caregivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".