The balance of give and take in caregiver–partner relationships: An examination of self-perceived burden, relationship equity, and quality of life from the perspective of care recipients following stroke.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the sense of being a burden to others or self-perceived burden (SPB) in people with stroke. METHOD: A mail survey was completed by 57 former inpatients and their partner caregivers. The care recipient survey included measures of functional status, quality of life, marital satisfaction, equity in the relationship, and psychological distress, as well as SPB using the Self-Perceived Burden Scale (SPBS; Cousineau, McDowell, Hotz, & Hébert, 2003). The caregiver survey included similar measures in addition to a caregiver burden measure. RESULTS: SPB was found to be a prevalent and distressing concern. SPBS scores correlated with measures of functional status and mood; however, the correlations were highest for measures of family roles and work/productivity. Using equity theory as a basis to examine the SPB construct, care recipients who perceived themselves as overbenefiting from the relationship had significantly higher SPB scores than those whose relationship was viewed as equitable or underbenefiting. CONCLUSIONS: For some receiving care from a partner after stroke is associated SPB. This sense of burden is related to changes in help-seeking behavior, quality of life, and distress.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".