MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subjective and objective burden and psychological symptoms in close relatives of elderly persons with traumatic brain injury

2017· other· en· W6927526907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Poison controlDistressAnxietyPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Injury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Caregiver burden and distress are well documented in younger adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) but not for elderly sustaining TBI (65 years and over). The objectives of this study were to: (1) describe subjective and objective burden and psychological symptoms (anxiety and depression) of close relatives of elderly persons with TBI four months post-injury, and (2) to explore if subjective burden is explained by age of the injured person, perceived social support, and subjective complaints relative to the injured elder.METHODS: Participants were 36 relatives of elders with TBI aged between 29 and 84 years (mean age = 65.1u00b112.2; 89% women; 67% spouses living with the injured elder; 17% children). Elders with TBI were aged 65-90 years and were admitted to a Level I trauma centre in Quu00e9bec, Canada (25% mild, 47% complicated mild, and 28% moderate/severe TBI). The Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) measured subjective burden. A checklist was used to assess objective burden (i.e., significant changes in activities or roles since the injury). Psychological symptoms of the close relative were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) using a cut-off>8 on either subscale to identify clinically significant symptoms. The participantu2019s perceived social support was measured with the Modified MOS Social Support scale. The Brain Injury Complaint Questionnaire (BICoQ) assessed a variety of problems and complaints observed by the relative regarding the injured person (e.g. memory, fatigue, motivation). RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of relatives presented mild-moderate subjective burden on the ZBI at 4 months post-injury and 6% presented moderate-severe burden. Almost all participants (87%) reported some form of objective burden (e.g. spending more time caring for their loved one or having less time for themselves). Regarding psychological symptoms, 17% of relatives presented significant depressive symptoms and 11% significant anxiety symptoms. In total 25% had either significant anxiety or depression. Subjective burden and psychological symptoms (total HADS) were strongly correlated (r=.54, p<.001). A first exploratory stepwise linear regression including the number of subjective complaints (BICoQ) and age of the caregiver significantly contributed to predict subjective burden on the ZBI, (adjusted R2=.46). A second exploratory stepwise linear regression including subjective burden and social support significantly contributed to predict psychological symptoms on the HADS, (adjusted R2=.40)CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that important proportions of close relatives of elderly persons with TBI report either anxiety or depression and perceive significant burden which is related to the injured elderu2019s ongoing issues. They take on new or increased responsibilities of support and care which are essential to support the quality of life of the injured elderly person. Given the increasing incidence of TBI in the elderly, it is warranted to increase attention towards the wellbeing of their caregivers.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0220.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.013
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.302 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207