Men Family Caregivers' Experience of Nonsupportive Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men's involvement as family caregivers has grown as the prevalence of dementia has increased. Men rely on support from others for caregiving but also experience nonsupportive interactions. The purpose of this ethnographic study of 34 men (24 spouses and 10 sons) caring for a relative with dementia, 5 assisting caregivers, and 15 professionals was to identify primary caregivers' perceptions of nonsupportive and supportive interactions in relationships with kin and friends as well as professionals. Thematic analysis of transcribed data generated from interviews, diaries, and focus group discussions revealed the nature of men's caregiving journeys, the characteristics of their social networks, and their expectations of supportive interactions. The nonsupportive interactions men caregivers experienced included a lack of orientation to the caregiving situation, an unsatisfactory linkage to support sources, insufficient support, and hurtful interactions. Information about nonsupportive interactions can sensitize kin and friends as well as professionals to the complexity of men's experience and potentially avoid unintended negative consequences of support efforts.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".