Determinants of depression in primary caregivers of disabled older relatives: a path analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the large literature analysing factors related to depression, several factors such as caregiving obligation and the interrelationships among the different variables relating to depression have been little studied. The current study aimed to analyse the effect of caregiving obligation (beliefs regarding obligation and social pressure) on depression, and the mediating effects of perceived burden on the relationship between stressors and depression, in primary caregivers of older relatives. METHODS: Cross-sectional study design. A probabilistic sample of caregivers from Spain (N = 200) was used. The data collection was conducted in 2013 through structured interviews in the caregivers' homes. The measures included sense of obligation for caregiving, perceived burden, stressors and depression. RESULTS: Depression had a direct and positive association with perceived burden, behavioural problems, and social pressure, and it was indirectly related through perceived burden to behavioural problems, independence for the activities of daily living and beliefs of obligation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the multidimensional concept of obligation, suggesting the existence of both an external obligation (social pressure) and an internal obligation (beliefs of obligation); (b) our findings support the hypothesis that external obligation is related to negative caregiving consequences, while internal obligation protects from these consequences; and (c) our findings support the partial mediation of stressors on depression by perceived burden. The relevance of the research to clinical practice includes the importance of understanding the perceived obligation of caregiving related to both internal and external sources of obligation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".