The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the caregiving burden of individuals caring for patients with chronic neurological diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caring for neurological patients poses a serious burden on caregivers, even in normal times. It is likely that this burden has become even more painful post-COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care burden of those who care for patients with chronic neurological diseases. METHODS: The study included 50 patients and 50 caregivers. All the tests were conducted twice, it was answered firstly, according to the pre-COVID-19 pandemic, and secondly, during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The depression levels of the patients and caregivers were assessed with the Beck Depression Scale, their sleep quality with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, their quality of life was assessed with the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, and caregivers' burden of care was evaluated with the Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale. RESULTS: It was observed at the end of the study that the depression levels of patients (p = 0.00), and caregivers (p = 0.00) increased post-COVID-19 pandemic, the sleep quality of caregivers (p = 0.00), and patients (p = 0.02) decreased post-COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, it was determined that caregivers' burden of care increased (p = 0.00). Sub-parameters of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, physical functioning (p = 0.02), role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.00), and role limitations due to emotional problems (p = 0.03) decreased for caregivers. CONCLUSION: In summary, we concluded that the well-being and psychological status of both patients and their caregivers were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".