Informal care giving to more disabled people with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: About 30% of the people with multiple sclerosis (MS) require some form of home care assistance and 80% of that assistance is provided by informal or unpaid care givers. This study focusses on the care givers for 530 more disabled people with MS, with the objective of learning more about informal care giving to people with greater dependency and need for assistance. METHOD: The data presented in this study were collected in a national survey of 530 people who provided informal care to more disabled people with MS. RESULTS: Almost half of these care givers reported that they provided more than 20 h of care per week to the person with MS, with more than 9 in 10 shopping for groceries, doing indoor housework, preparing meals or providing transportation for the person with MS. More than 4 in 10 employed care givers reduced the amount of time worked in the previous 12 months because of their care giving responsibilities. Although more than half of the MS care givers in our study reported that care giving was demanding, time consuming or challenging, about 90% of these MS care givers were happy that they could help. About two in three of these MS care givers found that care giving was rewarding, with more than 8 in 10 proud of the care they provided. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of the informal care givers to people with MS thought they would benefit from treatment or counselling provided by mental health professionals. Not only it is necessary to provide access to mental health services for people with MS, but it is also important to assure that their informal care givers also have access to appropriate mental health care, given the scope of their care giving responsibilities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".