Coping Styles and Interventions to Reduce Psychological Distress in Care Givers for the Mentally Challenged
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Care giver plays a vital role in supporting family members who are sick, infirm or disabled. There is no doubt that the families of those with mental retardation are affected by the condition of their near ones. Families not only provide practical help and personal care but also give emotional support to their relative with mental retardation. Therefore the affected person is dependent on the care giver, and their well-being is directly related to the nature and quality of the care provided by the care giver. These demands can bring significant levels of stress for the care giver and can affect their overall quality of life including work, socializing and relationships. Research into the impact of care-giving shows that one-third to one-half of care giver suffers significant psychological distress and experience higher rates of mental ill health than the general population. Being a care giver can raise difficult personal issues about duty, responsibility, adequacy and guilt. Caring for a relative with mental retardation is not a static process since the needs of the care recipient alter as their condition changes. The aim of this review was to examine the relationship between caring, psychological distress, and the factors that help caregivers successfully manage their role.'Family burden'- The role of families as caregiversCaring for someone with a mental retardation can affect the dynamics of a family. It takes up most of the care giver time and energy. The family's responsibility in providing care for people with mental retardation has increased in the past three decades. This has been mainly due to a trend towards community care and the deinstitutionalization of mental retardation patients. This shift has resulted in the transferral of the day-to-day care of people with mental retardation to family members. Up to 90% of people with mental retardation live with relatives who provide them with long-term practical and emotional support. Care giver burden increases with more patient contact and when patients live with their families. Strong associations have been noted between burden (especially isolation, disappointment and emotional involvement), caregivers' perceived health and sense of coherence, adjusted for age and relationship.The impact of caring on care giver mental healthThe vehicles of psychological stress have been conceptualized as adjustment to change, daily hassles, and role strains. Lazarus and Folk man (1984) define stress as 'a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well being.' The association between feelings of burden and the overall caregiver role is well documented (Deimling, Bass, Townsend & Noelker, 1989).Caregivers provide assistance with activities of daily living, emotional support to the patient, and dealing with incontinence, feeding, and mobility. Due to high burden and responsibilities, caregivers experience poorer self-reported health.The overarching theme from the findings is that care giver and care recipients do not believe that care recipients' basic needs are being met, which causes them a great deal of distress and anger towards services and increases care giver burden. Care giver asserts that the needs of care recipients and care giver are interconnected and should not be seen as separate. The stress in care giver is best understood by Pearlin's stress-process modelas shown inFigure 1.The burden and depressive symptoms sustained by care giver have been the two most widely studied care-giving outcomes. Reports indicate that depressive symptoms are twice as common among caregivers as non-caregivers (Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1994). Family caregivers who have significantly depressed mood may be adversely affected in their ability to perform desirable health-maintenance or self-care behaviors in response to symptoms (Yvonne Yueh-Feng Lu and Mary Guerriero Austrom, 2005). …
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 | 0.001 | 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".