MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W43430380 · doi:10.1177/070674370805300711

Caregiving and Illness Beliefs in the Course of Psychotic Illness

2008· article· en· W43430380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliana Onwumere, Elizabeth Kuipers, Paul Bebbington, Graham Dunn, David Fowler, Daniel Freeman, Philip Watson, Philippa Garety

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychologyMental illnessPsychiatryIllness behaviorPsychosisLife course approachClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Informal caregivers play a central role in patient care, and caregiving can provide positive and negative experiences. Negative caregiving experiences are associated with distress. This study investigates associations between caregiving appraisals in psychosis, distress, and 3 key illness beliefs (consequences, cure–control, and timeline), and whether illness beliefs makes a contribution to the relation between negative caregiving appraisal and distress. Method: We employed a cross-sectional study design. Caregivers ( n = 146), including Early Psychosis Services caregivers ( n = 60), completed self-report measures of the impact of care and illness beliefs. Results: Negative caregiving appraisals and distress were strongly associated. Caregivers appraised caregiving negatively and reported greater distress when they perceived the illness as having severe consequences for themselves and the patient, and when they perceived it as a long-term illness. In contrast, they appraised caregiving positively when they perceived that both they and the patient could exert some control over the illness. Illness beliefs did not account for the strong relation between negative caregiving appraisals and distress. Caregivers of patients with longer illness histories reported higher levels of positive caregiving appraisals. Conclusion: Caregivers' cognitive representation of psychosis may play an important role in positive and negative appraisals about caregiving, even at an early stage of the illness. Implications for interventions with early psychosis caregivers are discussed. Objectif: Les soignants naturels jouent un rôle de premier plan dans le soin des patients, et donner des soins peut procurer des expériences positives et négatives. Les expériences négatives des soignants sont associées à la détresse. Cette étude recherche les associations entre les évaluations des soins dans la psychose, la détresse, et 3 principales croyances entourant la maladie (les conséquences, la guérison-contrôle, et la durée), et si les croyances entourant la maladie contribuent à la relation entre l'évaluation négative des soins et la détresse. Méthode: Nous avons employé une méthode d'étude transversale. Les soignants ( n = 146), dont des soignants des services de psychose précoce ( n = 60), ont répondu à des mesures autodéclarées de l'effet des soins et des croyances entourant la maladie. Résultats: Les évaluations négatives des soins et la détresse étaient fortement associées. Les soignants évaluaient négativement les soins et déclaraient une plus grande détresse lorsqu'ils percevaient que la maladie avait des conséquences graves pour eux-mêmes et le patient, et lorsqu'ils la percevaient comme une maladie à long terme. À l'inverse, ils évaluaient positivement les soins lorsqu'ils percevaient qu'eux-mêmes et le patient pouvaient exercer un certain contrôle sur la maladie. Les croyances entourant la maladie ne comptaient pas dans la forte relation entre les évaluations de soins négatives et la détresse. Les soignants de patients ayant de longs antécédents de maladie déclaraient des niveaux plus élevés d'évaluations positives des soins. Conclusion: La représentation cognitive de la psychose chez les soignants peut jouer un rôle important dans les évaluations positives et négatives des soins donnés, même à un stade précoce de la maladie. Les implications pour les interventions auprès des soignants de la psychose précoce sont discutées.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207