Effects of Relationship Type on Quality of Life in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment and the Informal Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess whether there was an association between care-recipient relationship type and the QoL of older adults and their informal caregivers, and whether this association pertained to older adults’ cognitive function. Methods: This was a secondary data analysis. Older adults (n=1230) and their informal caregivers (n=1871) were identified from participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 5 and the National Study of Caregiving (NSOC) II. A series of bivariate and multivariable regression models examined the associations among the care-recipient relationship type and QoL in older adults and their informal caregivers, adjusted for socio-demographic variables as well as cognitive functioning. Results: Both older adults and caregivers’ QoL outcomes varied by the type of relationship. Recipients cared for by adult-child caregivers or multiple caregivers experienced higher functional limitation than those cared by spousal caregivers (β=.79, CI [.39, 1.19]; β=.50, CI [.17, .82], respectively). “Other” caregivers, such as siblings, friends, etc., had lower odds of experiencing negative emotional burden than spousal caregivers (OR=.26, CI [.13, .52]; OR=.53, CI [.35, .81], respectively). "Other" caregivers were also 51% less likely to experience social strain than spousal caregivers. Lower odds of experiencing negative emotional burdens were also found with multiple caregivers. The association between adult-child caregivers and social strain was explained by the recipients’ cognitive function. Conclusions: Care-recipient relationship type impacts the QoL in both recipients and their informal caregivers. This association appears to be affected by care recipients' cognitive function level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".