Contributors to Poststroke Dysphagia-Related Caregiver Burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Caregiver burden negatively impacts both stroke survivor and caregiver well-being. Thus, it is important to better understand the individual- and dyadic-level variables that may contribute to dysphagia-related caregiver burden. The aim of this preliminary study was to identify survivor-, caregiver-, and dyadic-specific factors associated with burden in couples experiencing poststroke dysphagia. Method Twenty-eight stroke survivors ("care recipients") with dysphagia and their spouses ("caregivers") participated. Care recipients and caregivers completed a survey from which scores for the following variables were derived: dysphagia-related caregiver burden, survivor- and spouse-perceived impact of dysphagia on mealtimes (social, mealtime logistics), dyadic congruence on perceived impact, International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale, Swallowing-Related Quality of Life Scale, and Stroke Impact Scale (cognitive, emotional, physical, and social domains). Spearman's rho and point biserial correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the factors related to caregiver burden. Results Increased burden was significantly associated with greater care recipient- and spouse-perceived impact of dysphagia on mealtime logistics; however, burden was not associated with measures of dyadic congruence of perceived impact. Notably, increased burden was also associated with increased diet restrictiveness and decreased swallow-specific quality of life. Dysphagia-related caregiver burden was not associated with measures of stroke impact/severity across any domain. Conclusions Factors related to dysphagia-related caregiver burden are multifactorial and include both care recipient (e.g., International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale, Swallowing-Related Quality of Life Scale, perceived impact of dysphagia on mealtime logistics) and caregiver (e.g., perceived impact of dysphagia on mealtime logistics) variables. The results of this preliminary investigation support the need to incorporate aspects of counseling and family-centered care into our management practices, a growing area of interest for speech-language pathologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".