Suicidal ideation among informal caregivers of older adults: The role of family values, care stigma, and care gains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aims to analyze the association between care-specific psychosocial factors in terms of familism, care stigma, caregiver burden, and gains with suicidal ideation of informal caregivers of older adults in Germany. METHOD: Data from the Attitudes Towards Informal Caregivers Project (ATTIC) of 433 informal caregivers of adults aged ≥ 60 years was used to analyze the research question. The Internalized Caregiver Stigma Scale was used to measure the internalized attitudes and behavior of informal caregivers regarding care provision for older adults, suicidal ideation was measuring passive suicide thoughts, care gains were measured with positive aspects of care scale and familism was measured with the short attitudinal familism scale. Linear regression analysis with robust standard errors were calculated and adjusted for contextual and personal factors (e.g., co-residence, personality, social support). RESULTS: Stronger beliefs in negative internalized care stigma were associated with higher frequency of suicide thoughts, while stronger positive internalized care stigma, familism, and care gains were not significantly associated with suicidal ideation. The associations were also found in additional analysis with a log-transformed outcome of suicidal ideation and in analyses excluding mental health as covariate (except for burden, which was significantly associated with suicidal ideation). CONCLUSION: Care-specific psychosocial factors in terms of negative care stigma are important to the risk for suicidal ideation. Thus, changing negative thoughts, evaluations and expectations about informal care and its performance could be helpful to prevent informal caregivers experiencing (high levels of) suicidal ideation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".