MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380883988 · doi:10.1002/alz.059359

The multifaceted impact of COVID‐19 on dementia caregivers

2023· article· en· W4380883988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maureen K. O’Connor, Steven D. Shirk, Lauren R. Moo, Jaye McLaren, Andrew H. Nguyen, Kendra Pugh

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careDementiaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BoredomPandemicIntervention (counseling)PsychologyTelehealthGerontologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Isolation (microbiology)Severe dementiaMedicineTelemedicinePsychiatryHealth careNursingDiseaseSocial psychologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic and consequent protective measures, including quarantines reduced or eliminated access to supports for dementia CGs. Dementia CGs have also reported increases in behavioral problems and decreases in cognition for the person with dementia (PWD) during the pandemic. We collected data on the impact of COVID‐19 on dementia CGs. Method CGs of PWD enrolled in a telehealth intervention were interviewed via video. At baseline, CGs completed The Caregiver COVID‐19 Limitations Scale. During interviews, CGs responses to questions about COVID‐19 related concerns and spontaneous discussion of concerns were recorded in field notes. Result Most CGs had a low level of concern that they would contract COVID‐19, but a slightly higher level of concern about the PWD. Several CGs reported at least a moderate impact of COVID‐19 related limitations on getting respite care (37.5%), leaving the house (50%), having outside visitors (25%), and gaining access to healthcare (25%). A quarter of CGs noticed at least a moderate change in the PWDs behavior. CGs also noticed cognitive decline. CGs felt changes were due to isolation, boredom, and depressive‐like symptoms. Caregivers also noted the loss of pleasurable activities they could engage in both alone and together with the PWD. A quarter of CGs also reported a great deal of difficulty explaining COVID‐19 related restrictions to the PWD. Specifically, memory loss experienced by the PWD necessitated frequent reminders about COVID‐19 and related limitation Conclusion Our results are consistent with literature demonstrating reduction in CG access to respite care and other supportive services during the pandemic. CGs noted declines in cognition and increases in neuropsychiatric symptoms in the PWD perceived to be due to isolation and lack of stimulation. CGs lacked access to previously enjoyable activities outside the home. CG noted the additional burden of lack of a shared pandemic experience due to memory loss that necessitated reminders about the pandemic and associated safety measures. In conclusion, dementia caregivers grapple with lost supports that increase burden, with simultaneously increases in perceived cognitive and behavioral problems in the PWD along with new pandemic‐specific burdens. Our findings underscore the necessity for increased dementia CG programming.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→