MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415263356 · doi:10.1186/s41687-025-00953-7

Does the relationship between stress and quality of life differ among informal caregivers of older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and children with autism spectrum disorder? Results from a cross-sectional survey

2025· article· en· W4415263356 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorCoping (psychology)Dysfunctional familyCaregiver stressQuality of life (healthcare)Autism spectrum disorderDiseaseStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Informal caregiving may impact the physical, mental and economic well-being and ultimately the quality of life (QOL) of the caregivers, however, each caregiver may differ in the degree to which their QOL is impacted. Little is known about association of stressors and coping mechanism in subjective variation of QOL among informal caregivers. This study aimed to understand the appraisal process for QOL among informal caregivers and compare informal caregivers of older adults and children with respect to their appraisal of QOL. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study utilized a web-based survey to gather data from two distinct groups of informal caregivers: those caring for older adults with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and those caring for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Caregivers at least 18 years of age were administered a survey that included previously-developed scales to measure stress, coping mechanism, and QOL. Structural equation modeling was employed to assess the mediating role of coping behaviors in the relationship between perceived stress and QOL and multiple-group analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the caregiver groups. RESULTS: Of the 417 included caregivers, 210 (50.4%) were AD patient caregivers and 207 (49.6%) were ASD patient caregivers. In model testing, perceived stress was negatively associated with global QOL for both groups (i.e. direct effects) (estimate = −0.637, 95% CI: −0.777 to −0.529 for the ASD caregiver group; estimate = −0.601, 95% CI: −0.731 to −0.468 for the AD caregiver group). The only statistically significant indirect effect was perceived stress on global QOL through dysfunctional coping for the AD caregivers (estimate = −0.026, 95% CI: −0.048 to −0.005). None of the differences in indirect and direct effects between the two caregiver groups were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived stress was significantly associated with QOL among informal caregivers, irrespective of the condition of the patient cared for, be it AD or ASD. Dysfunctional coping strategies played a significant role in mediating this relationship only among AD caregivers. However, the two caregiver groups did not differ between them in appraisal of QOL. Stress management among caregivers will aid in their ability to have a good QOL.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.300 · 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