MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901899584 · doi:10.11575/prism/34515

Exploring Help-Seeking Behaviours: Perspectives of Adult-Child Caregivers

2018· dissertation· en· W2901899584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allegra Sonia Samaha

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As life expectancies increase, so does the rate of older adults diagnosed with dementia; most commonly, in the form of Alzheimer’s disease. An Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis not only impacts the person afflicted, but also people around them who take on the role of caregiver. The role of caregiving often falls on the shoulders of adult-children, who are simultaneously balancing their own life commitments with offering high quality, around the clock care. Many elements impact one’s caregiving experience, including sociodemographic factors such as gender, age, occupation and culture. As the formal service sector works to improve access to support, it is critical to understand the help-seeking behaviours of adult-child caregivers; moreover, in a country like Canada with an abundance of diversity, variations in help-seeking behaviours must be recognized. The purpose of this study was to explore the help-seeking behaviours of adult-children, caring for a parent with Alzheimer’s disease. This qualitative study utilized a multiple case study approach, and was guided by the Anderson Socio-Behavioral Model of Health Service Utilization (1995). Findings from six adult-child caregivers from hyphenated cultural backgrounds suggest that there may be universality to caregiver’s desires and determinants of help-seeking behavior. However, in terms of programs designed for their illness-afflicted parent, themes of linguistic diversity, trauma-sensitivity and culture matching between care providers and service users were presented as important strategies to promote help-seeking behaviours and service utilization. Implications for social work theory, research, practice and policy are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207