Women’s Caregiving Experience of Older Persons Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias and Multiple Chronic Conditions: Using Wuest’s Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Care of persons living with chronic conditions rests heavily on women within the context of the family. Research demonstrates that women experience more caregiving strain compared to men, yet less is known about the differences in experiences between women carers: namely, wives and daughters. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the experiences of wife and daughter carers of older adults living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias, plus at least two other chronic conditions. METHODS: as an analytic framework, interview transcripts of women carer participants who were from the control group of a larger multi-site mixed methods study evaluating the web-based intervention My Tools 4 Care were analyzed. FINDINGS: Both wives and daughters experienced daily struggles, altered prospects, and ambivalent feelings around their caring role. Negotiating the role of professional carer was an important part of balancing caring demands and anticipating the future, and women took an active role in trying to harness caring resources. Findings indicated wives and daughters were generally similar in how they described their caregiving, although daughters reported more shared caring and decision-making, and needed to balance paid employment with caregiving. CONCLUSION: Wives and daughters face similar challenges caring for persons with a dementia and multiple chronic conditions, and actively engage in strategies to manage caring demands. The findings illuminate the importance of accessible, appropriate support from professional carers/health care providers, and suggest that assistance navigating such supports would benefit women carers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".