Psychological distress in informal caregivers of patients with dementia in primary care: course and determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The course of psychological distress in informal caregivers of patients with dementia has been investigated in longitudinal studies with conflicting outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the course and determinants of psychological distress in informal caregivers of patients with dementia in primary care. METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, data were collected at baseline, after 9 and 18 months. We assessed cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of the patient (Mini-Mental State Examination and Neuropsychiatric Inventory) and psychological distress (Sense of Competence Questionnaire, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale and General Health Questionnaire 12-tem version) of the informal caregivers. Determinants for the course of psychological distress were caregivers' age, gender and relationship with the patient, patients' cognition and NPS, participation in a care program and admission to long-term care facilities (LTCF). With linear mixed models, the course over time for psychological distress and its determinants were explored. RESULTS: We included 117 informal caregivers, of whom 23.1% had a high risk for depression and 41.0% were identified to be likely to have mental problems at baseline. We found a stable pattern of psychological distress over time. Higher frequency of NPS, informal caregivers' age between 50 and 70 years and being female or spouse were associated with higher psychological distress. For patients who were admitted to a LTCF during the study psychological distress of the informal caregivers improved. CONCLUSIONS: GPs should focus on NPS in patients with dementia and on caregivers' psychological distress and be aware of their risk for depression and mental problems, specifically to those who are spouse, female or between 50 and 70 years of age.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".