Relationship quality perceived by family caregivers of people with dementia in the context of a psychoeducational intervention: A qualitative exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caring for a person with dementia can be a challenging experience, often associated with chronic stress and a heavy burden on family caregivers. Dementia also impacts the relationship between the caregiver and the person with dementia. The quality of this relationship is, in turn, an important factor influencing the well-being of both dyad members. The psychoeducational intervention "Learning to feel better . . . and help better" has shown positive results regarding family caregivers' subjective burden, psychological distress, and self-efficacy. However, relationship quality has not been addressed in the context of this intervention. METHODS: A longitudinal constructivist grounded theory approach was used to explore relationship quality as perceived by caregivers, possible changes and intervention components facilitating or preventing such changes. Three qualitative, semi-structured interviews (before, during and after the intervention) were performed with 13 family caregivers from three different intervention groups. The resulting 39 interviews were analysed regarding individual caregiver trajectories, per time point for all caregivers and regarding specific caregiver subgroups. FINDINGS: A model focusing on sustaining relationship quality in dementia was developed. It shows strategies that family caregivers develop and apply to facilitate positive interactions and feelings of connectedness with their family members with dementia. It also indicates that mastering such strategies requires reflective skills based on specific knowledge of dementia and coping strategies, which can be enhanced through active skills training, in which caregivers are guided to work on their individual stressful situations. Factors hampering change included difficulties in accepting dementia-related changes. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that psychoeducation, with active skills training based on caregivers' current daily life situations, providing systematic procedures to handle daily challenges and specific knowledge about the impact of the disease, could support them in developing and applying supportive strategies to sustain or improve their relationship to their family member with dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".