Mental health, stress correlates and psychotropic drug use or non-use among aged caregivers to elders with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the study was to compare caregivers who used psychotropic drugs with caregivers who were non-users in order to pinpoint differences in coping styles between the two groups. We performed a secondary analysis of a study on the stress and psychological well-being of persons caring for relatives with dementia. We compared elderly caregivers, as either psychotropic drug users (n = 61) or non-users (n = 133), over various psychosocial characteristics relating to the care-giving context. Results reveal that users, as compared to non-users were: (a) more disturbed (appraised a greater stress) by the relative's dysfunctional behaviours, after controlling for the frequency of the behaviours; and (b) experienced more conflict during interpersonal interactions, although their appraisal of self-satisfaction with formal and informal support to their care-giving activities did not differ significantly. Strikingly, users combined and called on a greater number of problem-focused and emotion-reducing coping strategies than did non-users. They more frequently used affective regulation and information seeking coping styles. Stress-related measures (especially stress appraisal and conflict) contributed more to the variation in mental distress of users than of non-users. Results provide a theoretical and empirical rationale for therapeutic interventions such as the cognitive behavioural approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".