Impact of informal caregiving on cognitive function and well-being in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground:With a rise in the aging population and a consequential rise in persons diagnosed with dementia comes an increase in the number of informal caregivers who are caring for a loved one. The objective of the proposed study was to assess the neurocognitive and psychological effects of caring for a person with dementia or a related neurodegenerative disease in a sample of Canadian informal caregivers. METHODS: Fifty-seven informal caregivers of a person with dementia or a related neurodegenerative disease (mean age = 66.26, SD = 7.55) and 97 non-caregivers (mean age = 69.16, SD = 4.84) were recruited. Neuropsychological measures of attention, cognitive flexibility, verbal learning, delayed recall, and verbal fluency were examined, and questionnaires related to perceived stress, quality of life, mood, and self-esteem were administered. RESULTS: Caregivers made more errors on a measure of cognitive flexibility (p = 0.02), generated fewer words on measures of phonemic fluency (p < 0.01) and semantic fluency (p < 0.001), and learned significantly fewer words on a list-learning task (p < 0.01). Caregivers also reported experiencing significantly more perceived stress (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (p < 0.001), and were more likely to meet the cut-off for clinically significant depressive symptoms on a self-report scale (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These data contribute to a growing body of literature that consistently points to the need for immediate action to improve the welfare of 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".