Participation in Informal Caregiving Among People With Arthritis: Findings From a Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the joint pain and significant dysfunction that characterizes arthritis, many people with arthritis continue to carry out everyday duties and responsibilities. The objective of the present study was to describe participation in informal caregiving (unpaid assistance to someone with a health issue or limitation) among people with arthritis. METHODS: Analysis of baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a nationally representative sample of people ages 45-85 years (n = 21,241), was performed. A questionnaire covering sociodemographic, health, and caregiving variables was completed by each study participant. Caregiving variables examined characteristics of the person who received the most care from the questionnaire respondent, as well as the types of caregiving (e.g., hands-on versus hands-off tasks) and amount of care provided (e.g., hours per week). RESULTS: There was no difference in the proportion of people with and without arthritis who provided informal care (46%). Individuals with arthritis reported worse health, but this did not affect the likelihood of providing care, nor the types or amount of care provided. Caregivers with and without arthritis were most likely to provide fewer than 7 hours per week of care, and the most common type of care was characterized as hands-off, particularly transportation assistance. Men were just as likely to provide care as women but were less likely to provide high intensity care or perform hands-on tasks. CONCLUSION: Despite reporting worse health on average, people with arthritis were just as likely as people without arthritis to provide informal care. The need to provide informal care among people with arthritis may impact their ability to engage in self-management activities for their arthritis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".