A cross-sectional study of family caregiver burden and psychological distress linked to frailty and functional dependency of a relative with advanced dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological health of caregivers of people with dementia is a major public concern. This study sought to determine the relationship between caregiver burden, psychological distress, frailty and functional dependency of a relative with advanced dementia. Persons with dementia and their caregivers (102 dyads) participated in this Portuguese community based cross-sectional study. Data were collected using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Zarit Burden Interview, the Brief Symptoms Inventory and the Edmonton Frail Scale. Alzheimer's disease was the most common type of dementia among the recipients of care, who showed moderate (42.2%) to severe (52.9%) dementia. Among them 35.3% exhibited moderate and 45.1% severe frailty. Family caregivers reported moderate (76.5%) to severe burden (18.6%). Psychological distress was very high among family caregivers. Results show that people with dementia exhibited moderate (35.3%) or severe frailty (45.1%) and that a severe frailty was found in people with moderate dementia. A one-way ANOVA was conducted between the Global Severity Index and some sociodemographic variables. ANOVA reached p < .01 for employment status of the caregiver, assistance and professional support, and psychiatric history; and p = 0.01 for caregiver age and years of caregiving. Although caregivers reported benefit from the supportive approach offered by the multidisciplinary home care team, high levels of distress and associated burden were found, which might decrease their capacity to care for the person with dementia and their own health and well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".