The Effects of COVID-19 Stress on the Quality of Life and Well-Being of Informal Caregivers of Persons with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The main objective of this study was to measure the extent of the relationship between COVID-19 Stress (CS) and both Quality of Life (QOL) and Well-Being (WB) in informal caregivers (ICs) of persons with dementia (PWD). The current gap in literature suggests that little is known about the IC experience throughout the novel and evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. Participants were recruited both online Canada-wide and via the Bruyère Research Institute (BRI) between December 2021 and April 2022. The study employed a mixed-method approach and captured quantitative data via a self-report online survey using validated scales to measure COVID Stress (CSS), Dementia Caregiver QOL (C-DEMQOL), Carer Burden (ZBI-22), and Role Captivity. Qualitative data was collected via four open-ended questions which concluded the survey, to gather further information on the experiences of ICs throughout the pandemic. The statistical analysis employed for this study was Pearson’s r for correlation. Thematic analysis was employed to interpret qualitative data. Results. No significant results were found between CS and both QOL and WB, though significant associations were found between specific scale and subscale measures for QOL and WB. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes within the qualitative data: (1) increased burden on caregivers, (2) diminished quality of care for care recipients, and (3) lack of support and consideration by policy makers for caregivers. The impact that the findings of this study can have are substantial, as it will begin the process of documenting the impact of the novel COVID-19 pandemic on ICs of PWD and, more specifically, within the Canadian demographic. This will be able to address the current gap in literature and more tentatively, provide data to advocate for informed policy making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".