Adult daughters providing post-stroke care to a parent: a qualitative study of the impact that role overload has on lifestyle, participation and family relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively explore daughters' experiences with and response to holding multiple roles while providing post-stroke care to a parent. DESIGN: Qualitative study using a descriptive approach. Semi-structured interviewing was used. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed to develop themes. SETTING: General community of a metropolitan city. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three adult daughters caring for a community-dwelling parent who had suffered a stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Role overload is a salient issue for daughter caregivers. This overload is best captured by the analogy of "juggling" multiple role demands and responsibilities. Two key themes suggest that role overload resulting from parent care affects daughters': 1) valued relationships (e.g. challenges develop in their relationship with children and partner); and 2) ability to participate in valued activities (e.g. reduced involvement in leisure activities and restricted employment). CONCLUSIONS: Future support efforts should help daughters manage the caregiving role in light of other responsibilities. This can mitigate overload-related strain in valued relationships and decreased participation in valued activities, thereby contributing to better health and well-being for daughter caregivers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".