A narrative inquiry into how oldest-old care-givers of people with dementia manage age-related care-giving challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oldest-old (age 80+) spousal care-givers of people with dementia experience unique challenges and concerns that they attribute to age and/or ageing, including difficulties providing care because of physical, cognitive or sensory decline; having fewer friends who can provide practical support; and having less energy for non-care-giving activities (e.g. leisure activities, self-care). Previous research on how older care-givers manage is not specific to oldest-old care-givers and may underrepresent their unique experiences managing age and ageing-related challenges. A limited understanding can compromise our ability to tailor services to ageing care-givers. The purpose of this research was to illuminate how oldest-old spousal care-givers of people with dementia manage ageing-related care-giving challenges and the barriers and facilitators to strategy use. The selective optimisation with compensation theory and the transactional theory of stress and coping informed our conceptualisation of management strategies. We used a narrative gerontology approach, with two or three semi-structured interviews with 11 care-givers aged 80–89 (25 interviews in total). Narrative data were analysed thematically. We identified four main themes that encompassed the strategies shared by care-givers: adjusting goals to lessen care-giving demands and to mitigate stress, using alternative means to reach goals and to mitigate stress, enhancing capacities to care and mitigate stress through engagement in non-care-giving activities, and choosing positive attitudes and perspectives to lessen emotional distress. We identified a myriad of facilitators and barriers to strategy utilisation in each theme. The study provides unique insight into care-givers' management strategies, especially in relation to relocation of self and spouse and participation in non-care-giving activities, as well as insight into age-related facilitators and barriers. This research can ultimately help inform the tailoring of age-sensitive health and social care services to meet the needs of this group of care-givers as they age.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".