The Influence of Community-Based Services on the Burden of Spouses Caring for Their Partners with Dementia
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
Despite the vast literature on caregiver stress, few studies have explored how community services affect the stress process for spousal caregivers. The current study explores the differential effects of emotional and tangible support provided by family and friends and by formal services, and caregivers' perceptions of community services on spousal caregivers' burden. The study used a survey design with a sample of 85 spousal caregivers caring for their partners with dementia in the community. The study found that in-home services, as they are currently offered, do little to reduce the burden of spouses caring for their partners with dementia. Rather the most effective service is the provision of adult day programs, which provide not only respite for the spousal caregiver, but also opportunities for social interaction for their partners with dementia. This study further found that spousal caregivers experience a relatively high level of service-related stress. However, when examined alongside care recipient behavioral challenges and frequency of day program use, caregivers' perceptions of and experiences with the service system did not uniquely explain their burden. Implications of the findings for policy, research, and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 it