Caregiver Psychological Adjustment and Institutionalization of Persons With Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This prospective study examines the relationship between caregiver psychological adjustment and institutionalization of persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHOD: A 3-year longitudinal study was conducted with a clinic-based cohort of 396 persons with AD and their respective family caregivers. Caregiver adjustment was sequentially measured in 3-month intervals using standard scales of appraisal (perceived burden and satisfaction) and emotion (depressive symptoms and positive affect). RESULTS: In multivariable proportional hazards regression models predicting time to institutionalization controlling for AD severity, hazard ratios were significant for appraisal measures of caregiver adjustment, perceived burden (1.053; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014, 1.093), and satisfaction (.929; 95% CI, .883, .977). In contrast, levels of caregivers' positive and negative emotion did not reliably predict institutionalization. DISCUSSION: The findings highlight the importance of caregiver appraisals in decisions to institutionalize persons with a dementia syndrome, but the limited impact of caregiver emotion was unexpected and requires further study.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".