Daughters’ experiences of shared caregiving to a parent with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Siblings often share in the care of parents with dementia, but little is known about how care is shared. Research suggests that in comparison with their brothers, sisters provide the majority of care to a parent with dementia and this can contribute to the sisters experiencing poorer health outcomes. There is limited knowledge about how to guide siblings who share in the care of a parent with dementia. AIM: Our qualitative descriptive study sought to explore the experiences of adult daughters sharing care responsibilities with their siblings. The study protocol was approved by institutional (University of Toronto and Baycrest Health Sciences) research ethics boards. MATERIALS & METHODS: Thirty-four daughters participated in an online qualitative survey. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's (Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2006, 77) 6-step process. RESULTS: In an overarching theme, daughters expected shared caregiving with their siblings. They conceptualised this to be a practice of being equitable in dividing care responsibilities and fulfilling a supportive role for a parent with dementia; however, this expectation was not met by most daughters. Two subthemes were identified: (a) factors facilitating/constraining shared caregiving and (b) consequences of sharing care. The findings highlight the importance of understanding shared caregiving among siblings when caring for a parent with dementia. DISCUSSION: Results from this study suggest that although shared caregiving is often the goal, factors such as gender roles, geographical proximity, caregiver expertise/skill set and work schedules affect caregivers' abilities to share caregiving. These factors affected whether daughters viewed the caregiving situation as being shared equitably or inequitably, and this led to feelings of acceptance or resentment of their sibling's contribution to the care of their parent. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers can utilise these findings to better support adult-child caregivers negotiating care with their siblings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".