Social Isolation Among Spousal and Adult-Child Caregivers: Findings From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The caregiving outcomes of spousal and adult-child caregivers are widely studied since they are the most common source of support provided to adults. However, the literature on social isolation among spousal and adult-child caregivers is very limited. In order to further elaborate and specify unique caregiving outcomes, this study focuses on social isolation, both longitudinally and comparatively between spousal and adult-child caregivers. METHODS: This study was based on the Baseline and Follow-up 1 data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. A total of 5,226 participants (1,293 spousal caregivers and 3,933 adult-child caregivers) were selected. The Linear mixed models were used to examine the effect of caregiver type and caregiving intensity on social isolation over the course of survey. RESULTS: Spousal and adult-child caregivers reported greater social isolation over time, and spousal caregivers exhibited a steeper increase in social isolation from Baseline to Follow-up 1 than adult-child caregivers. Also, an increase in caregiving hours resulted in greater social isolation. Finally, male spousal or adult-child caregivers were more likely to be socially isolated over time than their female counterparts. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study contribute to the existing literature on caregiving outcomes by demonstrating an association between family caregiving and social isolation. The results indicate a strong need for intervention programs that aim to enhance social connectedness among family caregivers, and especially for those who perform intensive caregiving, are older age, and are from a lower socioeconomic status.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".