Understanding the Influence of the Complex Relationships among Informal and Formal Supports on the Well-Being of Caregivers of Persons with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the direct and indirect relationships between caring for a person with dementia and caregiver health. A conceptual model of the caregiver stress process considered informal caregiver characteristics, sources of caregiver stress, and the influence of informal and formal support on the well-being of the caregivers of persons with dementia. Structural equation modeling was used to test specific hypotheses in a sample of 327 caregivers of people with dementia who were living in the community, as part of the first wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Our findings show that the negative impact of the increasing disability of the care recipient on the psychological well-being of the caregiver was mediated mostly by the use of informal support systems and marginally by the use of formal support systems. The use of informal support by caregivers was associated with a decreased use of formal supports. The relationship between caregiver characteristics and their psychological health was mediated by the use of formal support but not by the use of informal support systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".