The Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Psychological Functioning in Family Caregivers: Secondary Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The responsibility and stress of being a family caregiver are associated with reduced physical and mental health. PURPOSE: To examine whether a 24-week aerobic exercise program improves multiple aspects of psychological functioning in family caregivers. METHODS: Family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (n = 68) were recruited and randomized into either an aerobic exercise group (n = 34) or a waitlist control group (n = 34). The exercise group was assigned a 24-week aerobic training program that incrementally increased the intensity, duration, and frequency of the exercise program until 150 min of moderate to vigorous activity were completed per week by the ninth week. Twelve measures of psychological functioning were administered at baseline and compared with responses completed following the intervention. RESULTS: Multilevel modeling revealed significant decreases in caregiver burden (β = -4.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-8.82, -0.38], RLMM2 = 0.11) and depression (β = -2.59, 95% CI = [-4.79, -0.38], RLMM2 = 0.13), as well as increases in mastery (β = 1.78, 95% CI = [0.09, 3.46], RLMM2 = .04) in the exercise intervention group compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Family caregivers report high levels of depression and caregiver burden. Engagement in a 24-week exercise intervention can ameliorate the perceived burden of caregiving, symptoms of depression, and their sense of mastery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".