A Population-Based Survey of the Workplace Costs for Caregivers of Persons With Treatment-Resistant Depression Compared With Other Health Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe caregiving work outcomes and related indirect (ie, productivity) and direct (ie, caregiving hours and expenses) costs. METHODS: A national, population-based survey to identify employed caregivers assisting a person with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and a comparison group of employed caregivers assisting others (No TRD). RESULTS: Screening identified 169 TRD caregivers and 1070 No TRD caregivers providing 23.3 and 14.6 mean weekly caregiving hours, respectively. Adjusted annual indirect cost estimates were $11,121 for caregivers of TRD and $7761 for caregivers in the No TRD group (P ≤ 0.0001). At-work productivity loss (presenteeism) was the largest component. Adjusted annual direct cost estimates were $29,805 for caregivers of TRD and $20,642 for caregivers in the No TRD group (P ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: TRD exacts a toll on caregivers and their employers exceeding that for other caregivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".