DO AGING ATTRIBUTIONS AND FAMILISM INFLUENCE LONG-TERM CARE PLACEMENT DECISIONS BY SPOUSAL CAREGIVERS OF OLDER ADULTS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how informal caregivers made decisions about placing older spouses in long-term care (LTC) facilities. A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from 40 spousal caregivers of community dwelling individuals above the age of 65, using the Aging Perceptions Questionnaire, the Revised Familism Scale and a semi-structured interview. Participants also made decisions for hypothetical vignette characters representing the varying levels of care needed by individuals currently on Ontario’s LTC waitlist. Qualitative and quantitative findings were unclear about the relationship between the attribution of health conditions to aging made by spouses and LTC decisions made for their care recipients. However, qualitative findings indicated that sense of familial duty to care for a spouse affected LTC decisions. These decisions were also influenced by the caregivers’ personal health and personal preference about care giving duties, gender of the caregiver, access to home care services, quality of the spousal relationship and personal experiences with caregiving.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".