Relationship Between Home Caregivers and Caregivers Employed at Selected Institutions Providing Assistance to Seniors with Their Care Recipients Suffering from Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There are many difficulties connected with caring for an elderly person sufferring dementia. Symptoms such as aggression or apathy, as well as the progressive nature of the disorder, affect the attitude of both home and institutional caregivers towards the people for whom they care. An important element related to the provision of care is the relationship between a senior with dementia and those who provide the care (home and institutional caregivers). The aim of the article is to characterise and compare these relations. Material and methods: The study comprised 124 participants, 57 professional caregivers and 67 home carers. Two standardised questionnaires were used: the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) and the Quality of Carer-Patient Relationship - QCPR Questionnaire. Additionally, the respondents provided socio-demographic data. The study was conducted via electronic media in the first quarter of 2021. Results: It was found that there is a significant difference in the relationship between home and institutional caregivers, with their charges in the dimension of "warmth and attachment" (measured by QCPR). People providing professional care have significantly higher scores in this area. There was also a significant difference between scores in the 'no conflict and criticism' dimension (measured by QCPR) for home and professional caregivers. Institutional caregivers, in relation to their care recipients, have a higher level of this indicator than home caregivers. Conclusions: Relationships between seniors with dementia and institutional or home carers differ with regard to some issues. The differences in relationships with seniors suffering dementia may be due to the time spent caring for this person and the caregiver's response to symptoms of dementia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".