MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199277702 · doi:10.20381/ruor-26887

An Integrative Exploration of Psychological Resilience in Informal Caregivers of Persons with Multiple Sclerosis

2021· dissertation· en· W3199277702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Odessa McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)PsychologyMultiple sclerosisPsychological resiliencePsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informal caregiving is growing in demand and is far from a uniform experience. Some caregivers report burdensome effects, while others attest to a wide range of benefits associated with their role. In the context of informal caregivers of persons affected by chronic neurological conditions (CNCs), psychological resilience is increasingly being explored as a protective factor that may account for variability in the caregiver experience; however, multiple sclerosis (MS) caregivers are noticeably absent from this body of work. To synthesize current evidence concerning resilience conceptualizations, assessments, and health correlates within this population, this thesis included a systematic review of resilience in CNC informal caregivers in which MS caregivers were unrepresented. Following this review, a qualitative study was conducted in informal MS caregivers to ascertain MS caregivers’ conceptualizations and unique lived experiences of resilience. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews of Canadian MS informal caregivers were conducted. Informed by the socioecological model of resilience in caring relationships, transcripts were analyzed using flexible thematic analysis. In support of the conceptual ambiguity of resilience, caregivers did not concur on a single resilience conceptualization. Emergent themes contributed to the creation of a cyclical model of resilience that incorporates adversity in the form of continuous loss and obstructed health-related self-care, individual and community resources, and multilevel adaptive pathways. We use our model to prompt future research directions and inform the development of effective resilience-enhancing interventions for MS 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→