A Scoping Review of Literature on Sex and Gender Differences Among Dementia Spousal Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sex and gender differences among dementia spousal caregivers have been investigated, but never systematically reviewed or synthesized. A synthesis of findings can help facilitate specificity in practice and in health policy development. As a first step towards such a synthesis, this scoping review reports the available evidence, identifies research gaps, and suggests possible directions for future research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used to identify articles, and to chart and analyze data. Systematic searches for published, empirical studies, with an explicit goal or hypothesis related to sex or gender differences were conducted in seven databases. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met inclusion criteria. Most (n = 45) were quantitative, cross-sectional studies. Caregivers included in the studies were generally 61-70 years old, Caucasian, middle-class, and highly educated. The most extensively investigated differences are: depression, burden, objective physical health, and informal supports. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This scoping review is the first to summarize and critique the research on sex and gender differences that are specific to dementia spousal caregivers. The review can be used by researchers to make decisions regarding future systematic reviews and primary studies. To further strengthen the evidence base, future studies may benefit from including more caregivers of ethnic minorities, using more qualitative, longitudinal, or experimental designs, and focusing on variables needed to inform caregiving models and theories. Overall, this scoping review contributes to furthering gender-sensitive practices and policies that are better tailored to the specific needs of this population.
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 | 0.033 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".