Stroke Survivor Depressive Symptoms Are Associated With Family Caregiver Depression During the First 2 Years Poststroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Behavioral and psychological symptoms associated with stroke are gaining increasing attention in a field in which recovery of physical function has dominated. A small body of research has begun to suggest that stroke survivors' (SSs') behavioral and psychological symptoms contribute to family caregivers' experiences of emotional distress. The objective of this research was to determine the unique contribution of SS behavioral and psychological symptoms on caregiver emotional distress during the first 2 years poststroke. Method- A longitudinal cohort study was conducted of individuals who have survived their first stroke and their caregivers. Participants completed standardized measures by telephone interviews at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months poststroke. A subsample completed additional assessments 18 and 24 months poststroke. These longitudinal data were analyzed using mixed effects modeling. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-nine SS/caregiver dyads participated. Overall, caregivers reported more emotional distress when caring for SSs exhibiting more depressive symptoms and more cognitive impairment and when caregivers were younger, female, in poorer physical health, experienced more lifestyle interference, and reported less mastery. SSs' physical disability, stroke severity, and comorbidity were not significant. The set of significant predictors remained consistent when examined in the subsample followed for 2 years (except SS cognitive impairment). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions aimed at improving caregiver well-being should focus on enhancing clinical management of SSs' depression and better preparing caregivers to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms. In addition, respite programs that encourage caregivers to maintain participation in valued activities may be beneficial.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".