Negative and positive experiences of caregiving among family caregivers of older blunt trauma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Family caregivers play a fundamental role in the care of the older blunt trauma patient. We aim to identify risk factors for negative and positive experiences of caregiving among family caregivers. DESIGN: Prospective, nationwide, multi-center cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 110 family caregivers of Singaporeans aged≥55 admitted for unintentional blunt trauma with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) or New Injury Severity Score (NISS)≥10 were assessed for caregiving-related negative (disturbed schedule and poor health, lack of family support, lack of finances) and positive (esteem) experiences using the modified-Caregiver Reaction Assessment (m-CRA) three months post-injury. METHODS: The association between caregiver and patient factors, and the four m-CRA domains were evaluated via linear regression. RESULTS: Caregivers of retired patients and caregivers of functionally dependent patients (post-injury Barthel score <80) reported a worse experience in terms of disturbed schedule and poor health (β-coefficient 0.42 [95% Confidence Interval 0.10, 0.75], p = .01; 0.77 [0.33, 1.21], p = .001), while male caregivers and caregivers who had more people in the household reported a better experience (-0.39 [-0.73, -0.06], p = .02; -0.16 [-0.25, -0.07], p = .001). Caregivers of male patients, retired patients, and patients living in lower socioeconomic housing were more likely to experience lack of family support (0.28, [0.03, -0.53], p = .03; 0.26, [0.01, 0.52], p = .05; 0.34, [0.05, -0.66], p = .02). In the context of lack of finances, caregivers of male patients and caregivers of functionally dependent patients reported higher financial strain (0.74 [0.31, 1.17], p = .001; 0.84 [0.26, 1.43], p = .01). Finally, caregivers of male patients reported higher caregiver esteem (0.36 [0.15, 0.57], p = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Negative and positive experiences of caregiving among caregivers of older blunt trauma patients are associated with pre-injury disability and certain patient and caregiver demographics. These factors should be considered when planning the post-discharge support of older blunt trauma patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".