MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410294412 · doi:10.2196/70648

Determinant Factors of Stress in Caregivers of Patients With Schizophrenia: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4410294412 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isymiarni Syarif, Hasnawati Amqam, Saidah Syamsuddin, Veni Hadju, Syamsiar S. Russeng, Yusran Amir

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPreprintSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyStress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Caregivers of individuals with schizophrenia face ongoing psychological and emotional burdens due to the chronic and relapsing nature of the disorder and the complexity of caregiving. Prolonged exposure to caregiving stress characterized by emotional exhaustion, role overload, and lack of social support has been consistently associated with poor mental health outcomes among caregivers, including depression and anxiety. Objective: This study aimed to assess stress levels among caregivers of patients with schizophrenia and identify the key determinants of caregiver stress. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional survey that was conducted between June and August 2024 at the Labakkang District Health Center, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. A total of 110 female caregivers participated in the study. Data were collected using validated questionnaires to measure stress levels and related factors. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests to identify associations and partial least squares structural equation modeling to examine the strength and direction of relationships between variables. Results: This study included 110 female caregivers of individuals with schizophrenia. The majority were early older people (48/110, 44%), had a basic level of education (elementary to junior high school; 45/110, 46%), were unemployed (83/110, 75%), and had been providing care for more than 10 years (42/110, 38%). A total of 58 of 110 (53%) caregivers experienced mild levels of stress, while 63 of 110 (57%) caregivers reported a moderate caregiving burden. Additionally, 64 of 110 (58%) caregivers reported challenges related to patient treatment nonadherence, and 58 of 110 (53%) caregivers experienced low levels of social stigma. Most caregivers (69/110, 63%) adopted adaptive coping strategies; however, more than half reported low levels of knowledge (59/110, 54%) and limited access to health information (73/110, 66%). The chi-square analysis identified several statistically significant associations with stress: age (P=.03), education (P<.001), caregiving burden (P<.001), knowledge (P<.001), coping strategies (P<.001), treatment nonadherence (P=.004), and perceived stigma (P=.003). Further, partial least squares structural equation modeling analysis showed that caregiving burden (r=0.672), stigma (r=0.921), and limited knowledge (r=0.909) were positively correlated with stress. In contrast, social support was strongly negatively associated with stress (r=-0.872), indicating its protective role. Conclusions: These findings underscore the critical need for targeted interventions that enhance social support networks, reduce stigma, and strengthen caregivers' coping capacities. Strengthening these dimensions is essential to mitigating the psychological toll of caregiving and sustaining caregivers' functional well-being. Evidence increasingly supports that empowering caregivers through structured support systems and educational initiatives can substantially alleviate stress-related burdens and improve care continuity for individuals with schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207