Caregiving Choice and Caregiver-Receiver Relation: Effects on Psychological Well-being of Family Caregivers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychological well-being of family caregivers is influenced by their relations with care receivers, and whether they have choice in becoming a caregiver. Limited study has explored the interaction effect of caregiver-receiver relations and caregiving choice on caregivers' psychological well-being. This study examines whether the caregiver's perceived choice moderates the association between caregiver-receiver relation and psychological well-being. Using population-based data from the 2012 Canada General Social Survey - Caregiving and Care Receiving (n = 5,285), this study applies regression and ANCOVA analyses. Results show family caregivers for spouses and children report significantly worse psychological well-being, whereas having choice to become a caregiver is associated with better psychological well-being. There was a significant moderation effect of caregiving choice on the association between caregiver-receiver relation and psychological well-being. Findings suggest that more services should be targeted for family caregivers without choice for caregiving as well as those who provide care for their children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".