A Systematic Review on Caregiver’s Burden Among Caregivers of Dementia Patients in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Increasing prevalence of dementia and the associated caregiving burden are expected due to longer life expectancy. This review aimed to critically assess dementia-driven caregiving burden and the associated factors in Malaysia. Methods: A systematic search using several combinations of keywords was conducted in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, and Ebscohost databases. The primary outcome was the score or level of caregiver burden, while the secondary outcome was the factors associated with such burden. The quality of the individual articles was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results: The systematic search resulted in seven studies being reviewed, consisting of six cross-sectional studies and one quasi-experimental study. Using the Zarit Burden Interview, two studies reported moderate caregiver burden with mean scores of 35.4 (15.08) and 46.0 (17.0). High levels of burden or strain were reported using the Caregiver Strain Index in other studies. The three main associated factors with burden identified in these studies were the presence of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), higher education level, and lack of social support. Conclusion: Moderate to severe caregiving burden level were found to be experienced by dementia caregivers in this country. High education, lack of support, as well as taking care of patient with BPSD being the most prominent factors associated with burden. Therefore, burden should be regularly assessed among the dementia caregivers especially among those with lack of social support and manage family members with BPSD, as to prevent adverse outcome from dementia caregiving.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".