Care-giver wellbeing: exploring gender, relationship-to-care-recipient and care-giving demands in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The three-way intersection of gender, relationship-to-care-recipient and care-giving demands has not, to our knowledge, been examined in relation to the wellbeing of family care-givers. We explore inequalities in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction, comparing wives, husbands, daughters and sons providing very-intensive care (36+ hours/week) with those providing less care and disparities between these groups in the factors related to disadvantage. Data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (N = 5,994) support the existence of differences between the groups. Very-intensive care-giving wives report the most depressive symptoms and lowest life satisfaction; less-intensive care-giving sons report the fewest depressive symptoms, and less-intensive care-giving daughters report the highest life satisfaction. However, group differences in life satisfaction disappear among very-intensive care-givers. Drawing on Intersectionality and Stress Process theories, data from regression analyses reveal a non-significant gender–relationship–demand interaction term, but, health, socio-economic and social support resources play a strong mediating role between care demand and wellbeing. Analyses of the eight groups separately reveal diversity in the care-giving experience. Among less-intensive care-givers, the mediating role of resources remains strong even as differences are evident. Among very-intensive care-givers, the role of resources is less and differences in wellbeing between the groups are magnified. Policy implications emphasise the imperative to personalise services to meet the varied needs of care-givers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".