Subjective and objective burden and psychological distress in care partners of older adults with traumatic brain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: In care partners of older persons (65 years and older) having sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI), the objectives were (a) to describe subjective burden (emotional, social, financial, and physical burden), objective burden (new roles and responsibilities), and psychological distress at 4 months postinjury, and (b) to explore the predictors of subjective burden and psychological distress. RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: = 11.2, 87% female). Participants completed the Zarit Burden Interview, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Brain Injury Complaint Questionnaire (measuring difficulties of the injured older adult perceived by the care partner), and the modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey. RESULTS: A majority of care partners (88%) reported at least one form of objective burden (e.g., increased/decreased time spent in certain activities post-TBI), 29% perceived at least mild subjective burden, and 27% reported either significant anxiety or depressive symptoms. Linear regressions indicated that a higher number of difficulties reported regarding the injured person and poorer perceived social support predicted higher subjective burden and psychological distress. A younger age of the care partner also predicted a higher subjective burden. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a better understanding of the potential impacts of TBI in older age for care partners. Future research should examine how to support adequately care partners in their psychological adaptation after TBI in an elderly person. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".