Brothers and sisters sharing in the care of a parent with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brothers' and sisters' experiences providing care to a parent with dementia differ, but little is known about how mixed-gender siblings share their caregiving responsibilities or how sharing affects their relationship. This study aimed to explore mixed-gender siblings processes for distributing caregiving tasks when caring for a parent with dementia and the impact of sharing care on their relationship. This descriptive qualitative study recruited fourteen English-speaking mixed-gender sibling pairs caring for a parent with dementia. Online open-ended surveys and individual semi-structured interviews were completed. Interviews and surveys explored division of caregiving responsibilities, conflict resolution, and the effects of sharing care on sibling relationships. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Five themes were identified: goal of shared caregiving is to meet parents' needs, sisters often take the lead, practical issues affect sharing of caregiving activities, personal resources or skills affect division of responsibilities, and shared caregiving influences relationship quality. Understanding how siblings share caregiving responsibilities can inform the practices of healthcare professionals who care for people with dementia and their family 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".