Health Among Caregivers of Children With Health Problems: Findings From a Canadian Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We used population-based data to evaluate whether caring for a child with health problems had implications for caregiver health after we controlled for relevant covariates. METHODS: We used data on 9401 children and their caregivers from a population-based Canadian study. We performed analyses to compare 3633 healthy children with 2485 children with health problems. Caregiver health outcomes included chronic conditions, activity limitations, self-reported general health, depressive symptoms, social support, family functioning, and marital satisfaction. Covariates included family (single-parent status, number of children, income adequacy), caregiver (gender, age, education, smoking status, biological relationship to child), and child (age, gender) characteristics. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed that caregivers of children with health problems had more than twice the odds of reporting chronic conditions, activity limitations, and elevated depressive symptoms, and had greater odds of reporting poorer general health than did caregivers of healthy children. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of children with health problems had substantially greater odds of health problems than did caregivers of healthy children. The findings are consistent with the movement toward family-centered services recognizing the link between caregivers' health and health of the children for whom they care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".