A qualitative exploration of how gender and relationship shape family caregivers’ experiences across the Alzheimer’s disease trajectory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiving experiences are not static. They change across the disease trajectory and care continuum. However, it is not clear how caregiver gender or relationship type is related to evolving caregiver experiences over time. This qualitative study informed by constructivist grounded theory and framework analysis explored the experiences over time of men and women who were adult children and spousal caregivers to persons with Alzheimer's disease. Forty spousal (10 husbands and 10 wives) and adult children (10 sons and 10 daughters) caregivers to persons with Alzheimer's disease were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Our findings suggest the experiences of caregiving, examined through a gender and relationship type lens, are complex and variable. The caregiving experience was not related to gender or relationship type alone, but often to a combination of the two. For instance, spousal caregivers did not immediately accept the diagnosis, with wives being more optimistic than husbands about a slow progression of the disease. Adult children caregivers were concerned about the ways the caregiving role would impact their personal and career obligations and sought ways to mitigate the changes to their daily lives. Sons and husband caregivers largely utilized home and community health services to assist with personal care tasks, whereas daughters and wives utilized the same services to allow them to complete other caregiving tasks (e.g., housekeeping). Recognition of the complex inter-relationships among gender and relationship type on caregiving experiences supports the need for family-centered interventions. This article also extends sex and gender research as it highlights that an in-depth understanding of the caregiving experience cannot be understood by gender alone and relationship type must also be considered.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".