MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family caregivers' burden and its influencing factors in elderly patients with hip fracture and cognitive impairment

2019· article· en· W3031826088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fei Liu, Xiaobing Yin, Qian Jin, Shi Yan, Zhu Xiao-ping

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua xiandai huli zazhi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily caregiversCognitive impairmentUnivariate analysisMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionActivities of daily livingCaregiver burdenRating scaleHip fractureCoping (psychology)Stepwise regressionPhysical therapyGerontologyMultivariate analysisClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryDiseaseDementiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the burden level and influencing factors among the family caregivers of elderly hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment, and to provide a theoretical basis for the intervention study on reducing the burden of family caregivers. Methods This study was a cross-sectional survey. A total of 130 elderly hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment who were admitted to a ClassⅢ Grade A hospital in Shanghai from January to November 2018 as well as their family caregivers (n=130) were selected by convenient sampling. Patient and Caregiver General Information Questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) , Barthel Index Assessment Scale (BI) , Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI) , Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q) , Simple Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) , Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) were used in the investigation. Single factor analysis and multiple stepwise regression analysis were used to analyze the influencing factors of caregiver burden. A total of 130 questionnaires were sent out and 121 valid questionnaires were collected, yielding an effective recovery rate of 93.08%. Results The CBI score of family caregivers of elderly hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment was (38.58±16.46) , and the overall level of caregivers was medium. Univariate analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in the burden level among caregivers of patients in terms of the following 7 factors: different level of cognitive impairment, self-care ability, caregiver's past history, whether living with patients, whether multiple caregivers or not, daily care time and total care time (P<0.05) . Multivariate stepwise regression analysis showed that self-care ability and cognitive impairment, caregiver's NPI-Q pain degree, negative coping style and daily care time were the main influencing factors of family caregiver burden in elderly hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment (R2=0.564, F=29.726, P<0.01) . Conclusions Care burden exists in family caregivers of elderly hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment. Medical workers should provide individual professional support and humanistic care to the caregivers according to the specific conditions of the patients' families, so as to improve the overall burden level of family caregivers. At the same time, it calls on the government, medical institutions and other relevant support policies to improve the care ability of caregivers, shorten their daily care time, reduce their burden, and promote their physical and mental health. Key words: Aged; Hip fracture; Cognition disorders; Caregivers; Burden; Infuencing factors

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua xiandai huli zazhiSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207