Understanding the Burden Experienced by Caregivers of Older Adults Who Use a Powered Wheelchair: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we aimed to describe the burden of family caregivers providing powered wheelchair-related and overall assistance and test the hypotheses that caregiver burden correlates with participation, wheelchair skills capacity, anxiety, depression, and social support. Methods: Cross-sectional study. Participants included 35 family caregivers of powered wheelchair users. Caregivers were assessed using the Power Mobility Caregiver Assistive Technology Outcome Measure, Late Life Disability Instrument, Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire for caregivers, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Interpersonal Support Evaluation List–12. Results: The most burdensome powered wheelchair assistance items were providing verbal hints/directions, needing to be nearby, anxiety, and fear that user may be harmed. The most burdensome overall assistance item was feeling limited in recreational/leisure activities. Caregiver burden was significantly correlated with participation limitations, anxiety, depression, and social support. Discussion: Caregivers experience burden for wheelchair-related and overall help, especially psychological burden. Such results have implications for the type of resources required to support family caregivers.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".