HOW DO FAMILY RELATIONSHIP PATTERNS IMPACT CAREGIVING BURDEN IN ADULT CHILD CAREGIVERS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Living with dementia is not isolated to the person with the diagnosis. Family and friends play an integral role in providing support, advocacy, love, and informal care for a person with dementia. Spouses and adult child caregivers have a unique relationship with the person with dementia (PWD), and often report a different subjective experience of caregiving (Rigby, et al, 2019). Due to limited research on how family relationships pre-caregiving impact the caregiving experience, the goal of this study is to gain a better understanding of these complex dynamics, particularly for adult child caregivers. The current study looked at perceptions of cohesion, expressiveness and conflict in family of origin (Brief Family Relationship Scale), as well as anxiety (GAD-7), mood (PHQ-9), and caregiver experiences, including burden, overload, and competence, among others (Caregiver Reaction Scale) in a population of adults (28-68 years old, N=25). Preliminary analysis results indicate a relationship between family conflict pre-caregiving and caring overload (r =-0.49, p = 0.04), such that lower levels of conflict were related to lower levels of overload. Additionally, we found no significant correlations between earlier family patterns of cohesion or conflict with adult anxiety (Cohesion: r =0.15, p = 0.55; Conflict: r =-0.11, p = 0.65) or depression (Cohesion: r =0.05, p = 0.85; Conflict: r =-0.18, p = 0.50). We discuss the current findings in the context of family systems theory and child-parent relationships in adulthood.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".