The Role of Social and Psychological Resources in the Evolution of Depression in Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article discusses a longitudinal study of caregivers (n = 195) from a representative sample of caregivers pf Spanish, ADL-disabled persons, aged 65 and over carried out to assess the role of social support and religiosity in the development of depression. Depressive symptomatology was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. One year later, 119 of the caregivers were contacted again. Stability of depression over 1 year was observed in most participants. Poor physical health and low self-esteem, as well as incontinence in the care recipients, were significant predictors of the development of depressive symptoms. Social support had a differential effect on the development of depression, depending on how much assistance with activities of daily living the caregivers had to provide. Religiosity seemed to have no effect. Depression in caregivers is related more to their health and psychosocial resources than to the amount of care they provide. Poor health status, low self-esteem, and lack of emotional support may be useful indicators in identifying caregivers at high risk for depression.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".