Impact of care–recipient relationship type on quality of life in caregivers of older adults with dementia over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia caregiving is a dynamic and multidimensional process. To gain a comprehensive understanding of informal caregiving for people living with dementia (PLWD), it is pivotal to assess the quality of life (QoL) of informal caregivers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the care-recipient relationship type predicts changes in the QoL of informal caregivers of PLWD over a two-year period. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of longitudinal data. The data were drawn from two waves of linked data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) and the National Study of Caregiving (NSOC) (2015: NHATS R5 & NSOC II; 2017: NHATS R7 & NSOC III). Caregivers were categorized into spousal, adult-child, "other" caregiver and "multiple" caregivers. QoL was assessed through negative emotional burden (NEB), positive emotional benefits and social strain (SS). Generalized estimating equation modelling was used to examine changes in caregivers' QoL outcomes across types of relationship over time. RESULTS: About, 882 caregivers were included who linked to 601 PLWD. After adjusting caregivers' socio-demographics, "other" caregivers had lower risk of NEB and SS than spousal caregivers (OR = 0.34, P = 0.003, 95%CI [0.17, 0.70]; OR = 0.37, P = 0.019, 95%CI 0.16, 0.85], respectively), and PLWD's dementia status would not change these significance (OR = 0.33, P = 0.003, 95%CI [0.16, 0.68]; OR = 0.31, P = 0.005, 95%CI [0.14, 0.71], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that spousal caregivers face a higher risk of NEB and SS over time, underscoring the pressing need to offer accessible and effective support for informal caregivers of PLWD, especially those caring for their spouses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".