A Literature Review on the Burden of Alzheimer’s Disease on Care Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) are dependent on nonprofessional care partners. Providing informal care can result in emotional, physical, and financial burdens; however, there is a need for a better understanding of the impact of AD on care partners to support the clinical and economic assessment of potential new treatments. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a literature review to evaluate the burden experienced by care partners of individuals with AD. METHODS: Electronic screening and supplementary searches identified studies published from 2011 to 2022 describing the association between AD and the quality of life (QoL) and physical health of care partners, and the economic or financial burden of AD. RESULTS: Following electronic screening, 62, 25, and 39 studies were included on care partner burden, cost, and healthcare resource use in AD, respectively. Supplementary searches identified an additional 32 studies, resulting in 149 unique studies. These studies showed that care partners of individuals with AD report moderate to severe burden. Higher burden and lower QoL were observed in those caring for individuals with more severe AD. Care partners of individuals with AD experience higher burden, lower QoL, and higher levels of stress, depression, and anxiety than those without caring responsibilities. Informal care costs increased with AD severity and accounted for the greatest proportion of overall societal cost. CONCLUSIONS: Care partners of individuals with AD experience emotional and economic burden, which increases with AD severity. These impacts should be quantified comprehensively in future studies and captured in economic evaluations of AD interventions.
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) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".