Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Latino Families With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Qualitative Interviews With Family Caregivers and Primary Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Latino individuals experience disparities in the care of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) and have disproportionately high COVID-19 infection and death outcomes. Objective: We aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among Latino families with ADRD in the United States. Methods: This was a qualitative study of 21 informal caregivers of Latino individuals with ADRD and 23 primary care providers who serve Latino patients. We recruited participants nationwide using convenience and snowball sampling methods and conducted remote interviews in English and Spanish. We organized the transcripts for qualitative review to identify codes and themes, using a pragmatic approach, a qualitative description methodology, and thematic analysis methods. Results: Qualitative analysis of transcripts revealed eight themes, including (1) the pandemic influenced mental and emotional health; (2) the pandemic impacted physical domains of health; (3) caregivers and care recipients lost access to engaging activities during the confinement; (4) the pandemic impacted Latino caregivers' working situation; (5) the pandemic impacted health care and community care systems; (6) health care and community care systems took measures to reduce the impact of the pandemic; (7) Latino families experienced barriers to remote communication during the pandemic; and (8) caregiver social support was critical for reducing social isolation and its sequalae. Conclusions: Latino families with ADRD experienced similar but also unique impacts compared to those reported in the general population. Unique impacts may result from Latino individuals' underserved status in the United States, commonly held cultural values, and their intersectionality with ADRD-related disability. Family caregiver social support was crucial during this time of adversity. These findings suggest the need for more equitable access, culturally appropriate and trustworthy content and delivery of health care and community services, as well as stronger financial and social supports for family caregivers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".