Caregiving style and quality of life in caregivers of patients with cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Cardiovascular disease (CVD), a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, frequently requires informal caregiving. Spousal caregivers may gain satisfaction while providing care, but there are associated risks, including reduced quality of life (QoL). Caregiving Style (CS; i.e. the ways one responds and is attentive towards their partner’s needs) may help explain why some caregivers experience worse QoL. This study investigated the relationship between CS and QoL among caregivers of patients with a diagnosed cardiac condition.Methods Spousal caregivers recruited from a cardiac rehabilitation program at an academic teaching hospital completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, CS Questionnaire, and QoL Questionnaire for Cardiac Spouses. Multiple regression analyses were conducted, controlling for age, gender, and education.Results The sample consisted of 170 spousal caregivers (M age = 61.8; 74.3% female). The mean of the physical and social functioning scale was 59.4 (SD 10.3) and emotional scale was 71.5 (SD 14.4). Average scores for proximal, sensitive, controlling, and compulsive styles were 4.95, 4.33, 2.82, and 3.22, respectively. Spouses reporting compulsive caregiving (e.g. overprotection, providing intensive care) indicated poor physical/social (β=-0.42, SE=1.02, −7.19, −3.18, p<.001), and emotional functioning (β=-0.41, SE = 1.41, −10.15, −4.60, p<.001). Those reporting sensitive caregiving (i.e. understanding patient needs and feelings) indicated better emotional functioning (β=.19, SE = 1.46, .10, 5.85, p=.04). No other CS was significantly associated with QoL.Conclusions Spousal caregivers engaging in compulsive styles of care may be susceptible to poor QoL, whereas engaging in sensitive styles may promote better QoL. CS may be an important consideration in programming and services designed to support 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".