Anxiety and depression symptoms among caregivers of care-recipients with subjective cognitive decline and cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caregivers of care-recipients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia experience high caregiver burden; however, the psychiatric burden of caregivers of care-recipients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has not been investigated. We aimed to explore the prevalence of and risk factors for anxiety and depression symptoms among the caregivers of care-recipients with SCD and cognitive impairment. METHODS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to examine the anxiety and depression symptoms among the caregivers of 343 care-recipients (84 with SCD, 120 with MCI and 139 with dementia) treated at the Memory Clinic of Huashan Hospital in Shanghai, China from May 2012 to October 2014. A logistic regression was used to explore the factors associated with caregiver's anxiety and depression symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 26.5 % of caregivers had anxiety symptoms, and 22.4 % had depression symptoms. Totals of 17.9, 30.0 and 28.8 % of caregivers of care-recipients with SCD, MCI or dementia, respectively, had anxiety symptoms (P = 0.1140), whereas 22.6, 24.2 and 20.9 %, respectively, had depression symptoms (P = 0.8165). The risk factors for caregiver's anxiety symptoms were increased caregiver age as well as having care-recipients who were male, had higher Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scores, and higher Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores. The risk factors for caregiver's depression symptoms were increased caregiver age as well as caring for care-recipients with MCI or SCD, those with lower Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) scores, and those with higher GDS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of care-recipients with SCD showed the same level of depression symptoms as those of care-recipients with MCI. Caregiver's depression and anxiety symptoms were associated with their care-recipients' psychiatric and behavioral syndromes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".