Gender differences among Canadian spousal caregivers at the end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in spousal caregiving at the end of life. The primary research question was to determine gender differences in caregiver strain among spousal caregivers. Secondary research questions investigated included (i) the presence of gender differences among spousal caregivers in the duration of care provided; (ii) gender differences among spousal caregivers in formal service use and unmet service needs; and (iii) whether support to care recipients in activities of daily living varied according to the gender of the spousal caregiver. The study was conducted over a 2-year period (2000-2002) in south-central Ontario, Canada. The study sample included 283 informal spousal caregivers (198 females, 85 males) each of whom were caring for a terminally ill spouse at the time they participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey. The analysis showed that females reported a significantly greater level of caregiving strain than males (t = -2.12, d.f. = 281, P = 0.035). When considering source of support in activities of daily living for the care recipient, differential assistance was noted on the basis of caregiver gender. Female caregivers had almost twice the odds of providing support in toileting-related tasks than male caregivers (odds ratio (OR) = 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-3.85, P = 0.044), while male caregivers had approximately twice the odds of providing support in mobility-related tasks (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.21-0.81, P = 0.011). Care recipients who had a female caregiver had lower odds of receiving support from family and friends in tasks associated with personal care (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05-0.53, P = 0.002). To address gender differences in caregiving, a realistic home-based palliative care approach must take into account the importance of informal 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".