Investigation of caregiver burden, quality of life, and occupational performance of primary caregivers of individuals having experienced a stroke with and without aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Individuals having experienced a stroke need the help of an individual to perform their activities of daily living. Therefore, the disease affects not only patients but also their caregivers.Objectives This study aimed to investigate how aphasia affects caregivers’ burden of care, quality of life, and occupational performance.Methods This cross-sectional study involved Group 1, (n=51) the caregivers of individuals having experienced a stroke with aphasia, and Group 2 (n = 51), the caregivers of individuals having experienced a stroke without aphasia. The caregivers were evaluated using the sociodemographic information form, the Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale, the SF-36 Short Form, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tests.Results Our study found that the caregiver burden in Group 1 was higher than in Group 2 (t = 3.8, p = 0.01). Caregivers in Group 1 also had higher pain levels (t = –2.21, p = 0.029) and lower social functions than those in Group 2 (t = –2.54, p = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the other sub-parameters of quality of life (p > 0.05). It was observed that the occupational performance (t = –3.31, p = 0.001) and satisfaction levels (t = –3.57, p = 0.001) of the caregivers in Group 1 were lower than those of the caregivers in Group 2.Conclusions Occupational therapy evaluation and intervention programs for caregivers should consider the occupational performance of caregivers of individuals with aphasia and include approaches to problem areas.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".