Stress Levels and Coping Strategies of Families of Adults With Intellectual Disability and Challenging Behaviours During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Qatar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the perceived stress levels and coping strategies of caregivers of adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in Qatar. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from June 7 to September 7, 2020 for caregivers of adults diagnosed with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours. Perceived stress levels and coping strategies were assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced inventory. Results showed moderate to high perceived stress levels in most caregivers (69%). The most frequent coping strategy was religion, followed by acceptance and active coping. Substance use and self-blame were less frequently used. The study revealed that emotional support, informational support and venting coping strategies were significant predictors of perceived stress levels. Restrictions on physical activity and social mobility caused by pandemic-related lockdowns have placed tremendous pressure on caregivers. Appropriate supportive measures should be implemented for the 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".