WHY IS IT SO CHALLENGING FOR ISOLATED SENIOR CAREGIVERS TO ACCESS AND USE INFORMAL SUPPORT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social isolation is one of the negative consequences associated with caregiving and is experienced by approximately 20% of Canadian family caregivers. Many studies have examined the obstacles encountered by caregivers when needing formal services, but very few studies have addressed the reasons why caregivers experience difficulties in obtaining support from their social network (family, friends, neighbors, and members of the community). In an effort to develop interventions that meet the needs of isolated senior caregivers, the purpose of this qualitative study was to identify challenges encountered in accessing and utilizing informal support. Nineteen isolated senior caregivers participated in seven focus groups. Data analysis was performed using the Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) approach. Results showed that various negative emotions were associated with asking for help such as guilt, shame and helplessness. Many caregivers reported that their social network was limited and that geographical disparity also influenced how family and friends could actually help. Since caregivers find their role difficult, they wanted to avoid exposing their social network to the negative experiences related to caregiving, such as dealing with resistance to care or incontinence. Caregivers also believed that other people were not adequately trained or had enough knowledge about their relative to contribute adequately. Main challenges in accessing informal support were related to the availability of the social network and those affecting utilization were associated to caregivers’ discomfort in letting someone else get involved in the caregiving routine. Interventions to support isolated senior caregivers need to address both aspects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".