MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169672831 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132168

Measuring the Caregiver Burden of Caring for Community-Residing People with Alzheimer’s Disease

2015· article· en· W2169672831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongmei Yu, Xiaochen Wang, Runlian He, Ruifeng Liang, Liye Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiseaseGerontologyAlzheimer's diseaseCaregiver burdenMedicineBurden of diseaseDementiaPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the direct and indirect effects of patient or caregiver factors on caregiver burden of caring for community-residing people with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients diagnosed with AD from two hospitals and three communities in Taiyuan, China and their caregivers. For this survey, 200 patients with mild AD and their caregivers were selected. Caregivers were asked to provide sociodemographic information including age, gender, relationship with the patient, level of education, and number of contact hours per week with the patient. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Caregivers Burden Inventory. The caregivers also completed other measures including the Positive Aspects of Caregiving, the Family Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve, and the Social Support Rating Scale. The patients with AD completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment; their caregivers completed the Activities of Daily Living Scale and a questionnaire about the patients' Behavioral and Psychological symptoms of Dementia. The main outcome in this study was caregiver burden. The care receivers' level of cognitive function, physical function, and behavioral problems were treated as original stress; the primary appraisal variable was measured as the number of hours of caregiving in the previous week reported by the caregiver. Mediator variables included perceived social support, family function, and caregiving experience. Path analysis was used to build the interrelationship among caregiver burden and patient or caregiver factors. RESULTS: A lower level of cognitive function in patients (r = -0.28, p<0.001) and longer hours of caregiving (r = 0.17, p = 0.019) were related to increased caregiver burden. Greater social support (r = -0.23, p<0.001), family function (r = -0.17, p = 0.015) and caregiving experience (r = -0.16, p = 0.012) were related to decreased caregiver burden. Social support (r = 0.16, p = 0.040) and family function (r = 0.25, p = 0.002) were directly related to patients' level of cognitive functioning, but were mediator factors between level of cognitive function in patients and caregiver burden. Similarly, social support was a mediator factor between patients' daily function (r = -0.23, p = 0.004) and caregiver burden; while caregiving experience mediated the link between behavioral and psychological symptoms in patients (r = 0.36, p<0.001) and caregiver burden. CONCLUSION: Level of cognitive function and hours of caregiving were directly related to caregiver's burden. Social support, family function and caregiving experience could mediate the relationship between patient factors and caregiver burden. Focusing on patient factors and promoting caregiver care will be helpful in lowering the perceived burden of caregiving.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations151
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207