Anxious attachment style and hopelessness as predictors of burden in caregivers of patients with disorders of consciousness: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies on caregivers of patients with disorders of consciousness (DOCs) have highlighted that their overall burden is not related to disease duration or diagnosis, but mainly to their personal characteristics. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of attachment style and hopelessness on overall burden in caregivers of patients in both vegetative state and minimally conscious state. METHODS AND PROCEDURE: Nineteen caregivers of patients with DOCs, hosted in a long-term care facility, were assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, the Attachment Style Questionnaire, and the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Socio-demographic information was also collected. Data were analysed through descriptive statistics, correlations, one sample t-test and a multiple regression analysis using SPSS. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Burden was not associated with duration of caregiving and gender had no effect on overall burden. Multiple regression analysis indicated that preoccupied attachment style and hopelessness together predicted 49% of the total variability of burden (R(2 )= 0.489; adjusted R = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that caregivers need psychological assessment and support in order to keep under control the level of burden and to help themselves be a better resource for their relatives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".