Cognitive limitations in older adults receiving care reduces well-being among spouse caregivers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of older adults have physical and/or cognitive challenges and require help to manage everyday activities. Many older adults receive care from a spouse. Over the long term, this has adverse consequences for caregiver health and well-being. Less is known about the outcomes associated with the early transition to becoming a spousal caregiver. Nor is it clear how mild-cognitive decline worsens caregiver outcomes. The present study uses dyadic data from 588 couples in the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project to compare mental and social well-being in marital partners who became a spousal caregiver versus those who remained noncaregivers or became caregivers for someone other than a spouse between 2010 and 2015. Cognitive ability was assessed using a validated version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Moderated Actor-Partner Independence Models revealed that becoming a caregiver was associated with an increase in perceived stress in both men and women, and an increase in anxiety among men. Partners' cognitive limitations moderated, in a dose-dependent fashion, the association between becoming a caregiver and changes in well-being. Specifically, becoming a caregiver was associated with increased support from friends for wives at lower levels of husband's cognitive ability, and with increased anxiety for husbands at lower levels of wife's cognitive ability. Associations were independent of demographic characteristics and physical limitations. We discuss the value of using population-based samples to study the transition to caregiving and implications for interventions during the early transition to a caregiving role for even modestly cognitively impaired partners. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".