MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390079113 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723003521

34 Specific Agitation Behaviors in Dementia Differentially Contribute to Caregiver Burden

2023· article· en· W4390079113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karlee Patrick, John Gunstad, John Martin, Kimberly R. Chapman, Jennifer Drost, Mary Beth Spitznagel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCaregiver burdenCognitionPsychomotor agitationPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryDistressMedical recordExploratory factor analysisMedicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Agitation is a common neuropsychiatric symptom within the dementia spectrum, experienced by 70 percent of individuals with cognitive decline. Prior literature demonstrates a strong association between care recipient agitation and burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia, as these symptoms are often difficult to manage and predict. Understanding how agitation symptoms in the person with dementia may influence caregiver burden is imperative given these strong associations; however, both agitation and burden are complex, multidimensional constructs. Agitation in dementia involves a range of behaviors including increased motor activity, emotional distress, and aggressive behaviors. Caregiver burden is also multi-faceted and often incorporates dimensions of social/relationship, emotional, and physical health strain. The current study sought to determine whether specific presentations of agitation differentially relate to distinct patterns of caregiver burden. Participants and Methods: Medical record data from an outpatient memory clinic were extracted for 609 persons with dementia and their caregivers. Caregivers completed the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) to assess caregiver burden and the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) to assess care recipient agitation behaviors. At their initial outpatient appointment, care recipients were also administered a measure of global cognitive functioning (either the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Mini-Mental State Examination). Demographic information was extracted from medical records. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine ZBI and CMAI factor structures. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses then examined whether factors of the CMAI differentially predicted ZBI factors, controlling for dementia severity and demographic variables. Results: Exploratory factor analysis yielded three domains of agitation on the CMAI ("Physically Aggressive," "Physically NonAggressive," "Verbally Agitated") and four domains of burden on the ZBI ("Impact on Life," "Guilt/Uncertainty," "Embarrassed/Frustrated," and "Overwhelm"). Regression analyses demonstrated all domains of agitation positively predicted overall burden. Regarding specific aspects of burden, Physically Aggressive behaviors predicted only Embarrassment/Frustration (B=.41, SE=.10, ß=.16, p<.001). Non-Aggressive behaviors predicted Impact on Life (B=.14, SE=.05, ß=.13, p<.01) and Guilt/Uncertainty (B=.05, SE=.02, ß=.10, p<.05). Verbally Agitated behaviors predicted all burden dimensions: Impact on Life (B=.35, SE=.06, ß=.32, p<.001), Guilt/Uncertainty (B=.12, SE=.03, ß=.22, p<.001), Embarrassment/Frustration (B=.17, SE=.02, ß=.38, p<.001), and Overwhelm (B=.16, SE=.02, ß=.40, p<.001). Conclusions: Findings enhance understanding of the relationships between specific agitation symptoms and distinctive aspects of caregiver burden, suggesting that targeted interventions for aspects of caregiver burden based on agitation symptoms may be useful in alleviating burden. Interventions focused on caregivers' feelings of guilt, personal health decline, lack of time for themselves, and fear and uncertainty about the future may be effective when care recipients present with physically nonaggressive behaviors (e.g., pacing, restlessness, inappropriate dress or disrobing). When a care recipient presents with physically aggressive behaviors, helping the caregiver cope with embarrassment or anger may be of benefit. When a care recipient presents with verbally agitated behaviors, interventions targeting burden globally may be most useful. Future work should seek to replicate the current findings and explore such 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207