Factors associated with the non-use of respite services by cognitively impaired older adults and their informal caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The predominance of cognitive impairment among older adults coupled with a shift toward reliance on informal caregiving has increased interest in determining factors associated with the use of community-based service. The challenges of providing care to older adults with cognitive impairment are particularly demanding. It is unclear however, that cognitive impairment results in an increased need for services. Rather it appears that informal caregivers are reluctant to use services. In particular, respite services are the most frequently requested yet consistently under-utilized service. Few studies have explored caregivers' apparent reluctance to use respite services. This study of respite service on-use was a secondary analysis of data from the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging (MSHA-2) conducted in 1996-97. This study used a sub-sample of 132 community-dwelling older adults with cognitive impairment and their informal caregivers. The Stress Process Model was used as an organizing framework to understandthe experiences of caregiving. Multivariate analysis focused on describing the factors associated with the reasons for non-use of four respite services: adult day centre, in-home respite, hospital respite, and personal care home respite. Findings from this study revealed that the majority of caregivers indicated they did not use respite services because they were unaware of the services. Caregivers who were not aware of particular respite services were more likely to be male, married, and have fewer years of formal education. Results of this study provide insights for respite service delivery and the appropriate targeting of services to isolated caregivers that may have never sought formal assistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".