Burden and coping strategies among <scp>J</scp>ordanian caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies reported hemodialysis patients' sufferings from physical and psychosocial issues, but few studies reported family-caregiver burdens. This study aims to explore the burdens and coping strategies of caregivers of patients receiving hemodialysis. Caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis (n = 139) at 3 dialysis units were given 3 forms: Caregiver and Patient Characteristics, Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale Difficulty Subscale, and Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, correlational analysis, and multiple regression analysis were performed. The Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale was significantly related to self-controlling (r = 0.20) and seeking social support (r = 0.17). Caregiver burden was positively and significantly correlated with self-controlling coping subscale, with t = 1.10, P = 0.05, and β = 0.25. Living with the patient was the only variable that was a significant predictor of burden, with t = 2.96, P = 0.00, and β = 0.331. Living with patients predicted caregiver burden, and the burden scale correlated with self-controlling. The findings contribute to the evidence on the adverse health effects of caregivers of patients receiving hemodialysis. This study suggests that nursing interventions should target caregiver knowledge for better coping.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".