The Dutch Objective Burden Inventory: Validity and Reliability in a Canadian Population of Caregivers for People with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that caregivers of people with heart failure (HF) often experience caregiver burden and emotional distress. However, these studies measured the caregiving experience using generic tools since a disease-specific tool was not available. Recently, the Dutch Objective Burden Inventory (DOBI) was developed as a disease-specific tool measuring objective caregiver burden in a Dutch HF population of caregivers. Using a cross-sectional design, caregivers of HF patients attending an outpatient HF clinic completed the DOBI, the Hosptial Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA). Caregivers (n=47) were mainly female (72%) and spouses (72%) of the HF patients with a mean age of 63.1 (±10.4) years. Patients were older (mean age 72.7; ±10.6), 64% male and had advanced HF. Feasibility for the objective portion of the DOBI was excellent with <10% missing values. The subjective component of the DOBI was incomplete and could not be used in the analyses. Seven items had minimal variability. Significant relationships emerged between the DOBI, CRA and HADS revealing construct validity for all subscales of the DOBI. Cronbach's alpha was >.80 for all DOBI subscales. The DOBI is the only disease-specific tool that measures burden for caregivers of HF patients. The objective portion of the DOBI showed evidence of adequate internal consistency and construct validity in a Canadian population of caregivers of HF patients attending a HF Clinic. Further testing is needed to determine floor and ceiling effects for DOBI items and responsiveness of this tool.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".