MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unfulfilled expectations and negative interactions: nonsupport in the relationships of women caregivers

2003· article· en· W2148683302 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Neufeld, Margaret J. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)DementiaSocial psychologySocial supportIdentity (music)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most research has viewed social support as unconditionally positive, but negative interactions such as conflict and dissatisfaction with support are present in caregivers' relationships and have a negative impact on their health. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe women's experience of nonsupport and identify the types of nonsupport present in their relationships with family and friends while caring for a family member with dementia. ETHICS: The study received ethical clearance from the university ethics review committee. METHODS: The theoretical perspective of symbolic interaction guided this longitudinal qualitative research. Included in the study were 25 in-depth interviews with a group of eight women selected from a larger study of family caregiving because they described nonsupport in their relationships with family and friends. FINDINGS: The women experienced two types of problems in realizing support. Unmet expectations for support was the most pervasive difficulty and included unfulfilled or missing offers of assistance, unmet expectations for social interaction, mismatched aid, or incompetence on the part of the potential helper. Negative interactions, particularly with kin, took several forms: disparaging comments that belittled a caregiver's experience, conflict between the caregiver and others in their appraisal of the care recipient's health status, criticism of the caregiver's decisions in caring for the care recipient, and spillover from longstanding conflict and issues in the family history. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to women caring for an adult relative with dementia and included a relatively homogeneous sample of English speaking, North American women of European descent. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the utility of identity theory to explain the impact of unmet expectations for support and recognized disparaging comments as a form of nonsupportive interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207