The Relationship between Caregiver Stress and Behavioural Changes in Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical studies have shown that caregivers of dementia patients often experience a great deal of stress related to caregiving. This paper examines caregiver stress within the context of behaviour change in dementia using the Kingston Caregiver Stress Scale (KCSS) and the Kingston Standardized Behaviour Scale (Community Form) (KSBA(comm)). Methods: Eighty patients with moderate dementia and their caregivers participated. Each patient was cognitively assessed with the Kingston Standardized Cognitive Assessment-revised (KSCAr) and the MMSE. They were also assessed behaviourally with the KSBA(comm). Each caregiver completed the KCSS. Results: Caregivers reported 13 behaviour changes, on average, as identified by the (KSBA(comm)), with Neuropsychological behaviours outnumbering Neuropsychiatric behaviours (KSBA factors) 3:1. Findings showed a strong correlation (rs = 0.80) between caregiver stress and behaviour change, with significant correlations for both the Neuropsychological (rs = 0.69) and Neuropsychiatric (rs = 0.62) factors. Caregiver gender was not significant for level of experienced stress, but caregiver relationship was, where adult child caregivers reported higher levels of family-related stress than did spouses. Conclusions: Caregivers were able to differentiate sources of stress; the strongest relationship emerging between behavioural impairment and stress related to caregiving (rs = 0.80). This supports the hypothesis that behavioural symptoms of dementia play a central role in the experience of caregiver stress.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".