MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580305080 · doi:10.1111/psyg.12234

Do spouse caregivers of young and older persons with dementia have different needs? A comparative study

2017· article· en· W2580305080 on OpenAlexafffund
Émilie Wawrziczny, Florence Pasquier, Francine Ducharme, Marie‐Jeanne Kergoat, Pascal Antoine

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychogeriatrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSpouseDementiaGerontologyFamily caregiversMedicinePsychologyQualitative researchClinical psychologyDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim The aim of this study was to explore the needs of spouse caregivers of persons with dementia (PWD) and then to compare them based on the PWD's age at disease onset. This data could be used to adapt support programmes to address differences between the two groups. Method Thirty‐eight spouse caregivers of persons with late‐onset dementia and 40 spouse caregivers of persons with early‐onset dementia (PEOD) agreed to participate in the study. The mean ± SD age of the PEOD was 57.6 ± 4.0 years, whereas it was 80.9 ± 5.3 years for the persons with late‐onset dementia. Interviews were conducted in the spouse caregivers' homes with only the spouse caregiver. The semi‐structured interviews were based on the French version of the Carers Outcome Agreement Tool. The interviews were analyzed in two steps. The first step was qualitative to identify needs. The data were thematically analyzed using QSR NVivo 10. The second step was quantitative to compare the needs depending on the PWD's age at onset. The comparison between the two groups was performed using the χ2 test. Results The results demonstrated that the majority of needs are the same for the two groups of spouse caregivers. All caregivers need to unwind, to stimulate and pay attention to the PWD, to break the isolation, and to be more prepared and confident. However, some differences emerge, with the spouse caregivers of PEOD expressing a greater number of needs. The caregivers of PEOD seem to have a greater need to interact and maintain contacts with other people (P = 0.001), have more general care‐related needs (P = 0.005), require more appropriate care structures (P = 0.037), and need greater assistance with administrative procedures (P = 0.004). Conclusion To improve spouse caregivers' well‐being and sense of efficiency, it would be interesting to develop a support programme with a common framework and specific modules depending on the PWD's age at disease onset.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207