Exploring Spousal Relationships Post-Stroke and the Association Between Relationship Congruence and Dysphagia-Related Caregiver Burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke survivors often receive spousal support for post-stroke impairments. The quality of spousal caregiving and couples’ wellbeing can suffer from post-stroke relationship changes and caregiver burden. Because swallowing impairment (dysphagia) is common post-stroke and spouses providing dysphagia care may experience burden, it is also important to explore whether relationship changes post-stroke are associated with dysphagia outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe stroke survivor-spouse relationships post-stroke and explore whether relationship congruence is associated with dysphagia-related caregiver burden or swallowing-related quality of life (SWAL-QoL). Twenty-nine survivor-spouse couples completed a relationship questionnaire with 13 Likert scale questions (15 for spouses), analyzed for frequency of agreement and disagreement, and 2 open-ended questions regarding relationship strengths and possible improvements, analyzed thematically. Correlations were analyzed between relationship congruence (the absolute magnitude of difference between total scores of corresponding couples) and dysphagia-related caregiver burden score and SWAL-QoL using Spearman’s correlations. The majority (≥70%) of survivors and spouses responded positively to questions regarding closeness, care/affection, and communication in their relationship. Similarly, affection (41% survivors, 31% spouses) and communication (14% survivors, 17% spouses) were the first and second most described relationship strengths; spouses also identified honesty as the third most common strength (14%). Many participants were unsure of how the relationship could be improved (34% survivors, 31% spouses). Relationship congruence was not significantly correlated with dysphagia-related caregiver burden (rs = -0.273, p = 0.076) or SWAL-QoL (rs = -0.133, p = 0.246). Future research should assess how dysphagia affects relationships. This could provide further nuance regarding the association between spousal relationships and dysphagia outcomes and potentially inform future interventions.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".