Modulators of Caregiver Distress and Corresponding Impacts on Persons With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extensive literature documents the detrimental effects of caregiver distress (CD) for caregivers. Less is known about the impact that CD exerts upon their care recipients, particularly persons with dementia (PwD). Using multilevel modeling, this study employed dyadic data from the Voices in Motion study to examine time-varying within-person associations between key caregiver and care recipient indicators of psychosocial function. An initial dyadic coupling model indicated that cognitive functioning for PwD and caregiver well-being significantly predicted shifts in CD. A second time-varying dyadic model found that, within dyads, high levels of CD predicted lower positive affect and increased depression scores in PwD. Most sociocognitive interventions target a sole member of a dyad; our results suggest that both dyad members are impacted simultaneously. Caregiver well-being impacts CD, which in turn, impacts well-being in PwD. The symbiotic relationship between care partners and PwD is nuanced, with further research required to understand the interdependencies.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".