Transition Into the Caregiver Role Among Older Adults: A Study of Social Participation and Social Support Based on the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older adults (65 years and older) are increasingly providing care for their spouses, family members, and nonkin others (e.g., friends and neighbors). However, available knowledge of older caregivers is limited to spousal caregivers and their psychological outcomes. Other caregiver role types or social outcomes among older caregivers are less well studied. Thus, this study examines the social participation and social support among older caregivers by comparing 3 types of older caregivers, including spousal caregivers, nonspouse family caregivers, and nonkin caregivers. METHODS: Participants for this study were drawn from the Baseline and Follow-up 1 data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. A total of 3,789 older adults became caregivers during the 2 data collection time points. Linear mixed models were applied to examine the change of social participation and social support among the three caregiver role types over the course of survey. RESULTS: The study finds that after transitioning into the caregiving role, spousal caregivers, and nonkin caregivers experienced a decline in social participation, and spousal caregivers also received less social support over time. When comparing the 3 caregiver role types, spousal caregivers reported the greatest decline in social participation and social support. DISCUSSION: This study adds to the relatively limited knowledge of older caregivers by presenting the changes in social participation and social support after transitioning into 3 types of caregiver roles. The results indicate the need to provide support for caregivers, particularly spousal and nonkin caregivers, to help them maintain social relationships and networks for participation and support.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".