A grounded theory study to identify caregiving phases and support needs across the Alzheimer’s disease trajectory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease require support across the full disease trajectory. The aim of this study was to develop a conceptual framework of caregiving phases across the Alzheimer's disease and caregiving trajectories and the corresponding caregiver support needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 20) caregivers were interviewed. Recruitment was completed when theoretical saturation was achieved. Member-checking interviews occurred with 10 participants. RESULTS: Participants described five phases of caregiving related to their responsibilities to support people with Alzheimer's disease including monitoring initial symptoms, navigating their diagnosis, assisting with instrumental activities of daily living, assisting with basic activities of daily living, and preparing for the future. Support (i.e., informational, emotional, instrumental, and appraisal) needs were often specific to the phase of care. For example, during the initial symptoms phase, caregivers reported needing information to assist them to distinguish normal aging from cognitive impairment. In contrast, during the preparing for the future phase, caregivers emphasized support for accessing institutional long term-care placement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight caregiver-identified phases of caregiving and corresponding support needs across the Alzheimer's disease trajectory. Findings can inform the development, evaluation and implementation of programs and services to meet caregivers' changing needs across the disease trajectory.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCaregivers for individuals with Alzheimer's disease can experience distinct caregiving phases across the disease trajectory with corresponding support needs.Rehabilitation clinicians can use these findings to help caregivers navigate available supports at appropriate times to ensure that their needs are addressed across the disease trajectory.Occupational therapists and other rehabilitation professionals can enable caregivers with timely education and support as they progress across the disease trajectory.
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 | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".