Social and leisure engagement moderates the association between care partner distress and cognitive status of care recipients with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Despite the established impact of care recipient cognitive impairment on care partner (CP) distress, limited quantitative research has explored how social and leisure engagement may moderate this relationship, offering a potential avenue for enhancing well-being in both care partners and recipients. The current study therefore examined the between- and within-dyad associations between cognitive impairment of persons with dementia (PwD) and their family CP’s distress, and whether social and leisure activity moderated this relationship.Methods Data were utilized from dyads (PwD, n = 33, and their CPs, n = 34) engaged in the Voices in Motion project, a social-cognitive choral intervention for PwD and their family CPs. Measures indexing PwD cognitive status, CP distress, and PwD and CP social and leisure engagement were assessed using an intensive repeated-measures burst design, with multilevel models of change employed to disaggregate between- and within-person effects.Results Diminished cognitive functioning in PwD was associated with increased CP distress (p < 0.01) between-dyads; however, this relationship was not significant within-dyads. The between-dyad association was significantly moderated by the extent of social and leisure engagement of both CPs (p < .001) and PwD (p = .04). Follow-up simple slopes demonstrated that, at mean- and high-levels (+1SD) of social and leisure engagement for PwD and/or CP, increased PwD cognitive function significantly predicted lower CP distress.Conclusion The significant moderating influence of social and leisure engagement of dyads underscores the protective role of such engagement for reducing care-related distress. Activity engagement for CPs and PwD may help modulate the deleterious impact of PwD cognitive impairment and attenuate CP distress. These findings highlight the potential for dyadic interventions that promote social and leisure activities to mitigate caregiving challenges and enhance quality of life for both CPs and PwD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".