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.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it