Exploring the Connection Between Functional Social Support, Marital Status and Memory from the Perspective of Community-Dwelling Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objective We undertook a qualitative descriptive study to explore participants’ perceptions of whether marital status shapes how functional social support (FSS) relates to memory. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 community-dwelling middle-aged and older people representing various marital status categories. Each interview was audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. Findings Participants did not perceive marital status to shape the FSS–memory relationship. Three themes emerged to explain this view: learning to cope – participants used alternatives besides a spouse to deal with memory challenges; context matters – factors such as marital satisfaction must be considered; and doing more harm than good – some spouses may provide excessive support, reducing participants’ autonomy to stimulate their own cognitive processes. Discussion These themes highlight that marital relationships are complex and that contextual factors such as marital quality and support adequacy should be considered to provide a comprehensive understanding of how social and marital dynamics shape cognitive trajectories in aging populations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".