Perceptions of family caregivers’ psychosocial behavior when communicating with spouses who have Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD) notes the importance of attending to the linguistic and psychosocial dimensions of communication. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between psychosocial aspects of caregivers' behavior and communication outcomes for persons with AD and their spousal caregivers. In the first part of the study, we selected 40 segments of audio-recorded conversations between persons with AD and their spouses. We then asked 20 healthy seniors who were not caregivers to listen to and read the conversation segments and evaluate each segment along four psychosocial dimensions. They were also asked to independently rate how smooth the communication was in each segment. We hypothesized that when caregivers' speech is perceived to be respectful, caring, not controlling, and/or it ascribes competence to their spouses, it would be associated with more effective communication. Our results supported these hypotheses in that communication was more likely to be rated higher in smoothness when the content and manner of caregivers' speech were perceived to have positive psychosocial qualities. The findings have implications for training caregivers on effective psychosocial behavior when interacting with persons who have AD.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".