The Role of Religion and Culture in Intergenerational Transnational Caregiving: Perspectives from Nigerian Christian Immigrants in Northern BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Rationale: Transnational caregiving may be influenced by religious beliefs and cultural traditions that frame elder care as both a moral and religious obligation. While migration alters caregiving dynamics, religious teachings and cultural expectations remain central in guiding transnational caregiving practices. This study examines how Christian Nigerians who have immigrated to Canada navigate caregiving responsibilities within a transnational context, integrating their religion, cultural values, and the practical realities of cross-border. Methods: This study employed a predominantly qualitative narrative approach, drawing on in-depth interviews with Nigerian Christian immigrants (N=10) providing transnational care. Data collection involved a pre-interview survey and semi-structured interviews, providing opportunity for participants to share their lived experiences. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring themes related to the role of religion and culture in caregiving, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of participants’ perspectives. Findings: Caregiving is shaped by religious duty and cultural obligation, reinforced by biblical teachings and cultural values. Participants view elder care as a moral responsibility, tied to spiritual rewards and familial duty. Despite migration demands, family-based care remains preferred over institutional care, with social stigma attached to neglecting elders. Conclusion: Religion and culture remain integral to transnational caregiving practices, sustaining caregiving responsibilities despite migration-related realities. While religious teachings provide moral guidance and emotional support, cultural expectations reinforce caregiving as a collective and intergenerational duty. These findings high-light the need for policies and resources that support transnational caregivers, ensuring they can fulfil their care-giving roles while adapting to new sociocultural environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".