The Lived Experiences of Female Informal Caregivers for Individuals with Young-onset Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\nObjective: Informal CGs for individuals with dementia experience an increased risk of compromised health. However, CGs of individuals with young-onset dementia (CGs-YOD) are more likely to have longer caregiving durations, less social support, and heavier caregiver burdens than those caring for people with LOD (Arai et al., 2007). Further, there are limited resources available to CGs-YOD, increasing their likelihood of negative health outcomes associated with CGs roles. This qualitative study investigated the experiences of female informal CGs-YOD specifically examining the effect of providing informal care on CGs overall health and well-being.\nMethods: The theoretical orientation used to guide the research was interpretive phenomenology in order to ensure an accurate representation of the lived experiences of female informal CGs-YOD was provided. Background questionnaires were administered, followed by one-on-one semi-structured interviews, and follow up interviews. Subsequently interviews were transcribed verbatim. Field notes, member checks, and triangulation were used to enhance the credibility of the study.\nResults: From the analysis three themes emerged: (1) “Are we essential?”, (2) “I don’t wish this life for anybody”, and (3) “I don’t belong here”. All participants emphasized the life altering nature of their caregiving roles and the importance of advocating and spreading awareness to help fight the stigma associated with YOD.\nConclusions: Overall, this study provides knowledge on the lived experiences of female informal CGs within the Canadian healthcare system and the challenges and barriers associated with providing informal care for individuals with YOD. Their stories can provide comfort for other individuals currently providing care for loved ones with YOD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".