Cognitive Functioning under Stress: Evidence from Informal Caregivers of Palliative Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caring for a terminally ill family member can be extremely stressful, and stress is known to have a negative influence on aspects of cognition. In contrast to the well-known physical and mental health risks associated with caregiving, little is known about its impact on cognitive functioning. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to explore cognition among caregivers of palliative family members with a battery of neuropsychological tests. A secondary objective was to examine changes in cognition following caregiving by retesting a subset of participants at least 6 months after the death of their care recipient. METHOD: While caregiving, 27 participants completed an assessment battery measuring attention, learning, and memory, as well as intelligence, mood, and general health; 22 participants completed this battery again post-caregiving. We compared caregivers' cognitive performance to healthy normative samples. RESULTS: Participants who were caring for palliative relatives exhibited significant impairments in attention, including difficulty monitoring their performance and regulating their attentional resources. In contrast, participants' episodic and working memory performance was not impaired while caregiving. A mixed pattern of improvement and worsening of cognitive functioning was evident among caregivers retested after their family member's death. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the well-documented physical and mental health risks associated with caregiving, this study adds to a small body of literature demonstrating impaired cognitive functioning among family members providing end-of-life care. Secondary findings of both improvement and deterioration of cognition post caregiving provide tentative support for the possibility of reversing certain cognitive deficits by reducing caregiver stress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".