MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096332592 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138670

Experiences and Support Needs of Caregivers of Patients with Higher-Risk MDS: Qualitative Insights Via Online Bulletin Board in the US, UK, and Canada

2020· article· en· W3096332592 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauline Frank, Emma Chen Sasse

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFocus groupPsychologyGerontologyDiseaseQualitative researchMedicineMedical educationSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Higher-risk MDS patients and caregivers can face many challenges in the course of the disease and disease management. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers can both experience physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and functional issues. Research on the burden of caring for advanced cancer patients suggest that there is insufficient support for caregivers, which might be due to the lack of knowledge about their needs and burdens (Friðriksdóttir et al. 2011; Chambers et al. 2012; Sklenarova et al. 2015). The overall experience of caregivers for MDS patients has not been evaluated to date. Our key research questions are related to: Caregiver role before, during, and after diagnosis; and along the disease journeyImpact on the caregiver's life and well-being; consequently their areas of need for supportImpact of decisions made, including treatments We used the online bulletin board (OBB) as the qualitative research methodology for this research. OBB enables data collection via a web-based platform. This innovative type of online focus group, can generate more meaningful and impactful insights compared to traditional focus groups (Reid et al. 2005). A mix of moderator-led Q&A and participant discussion will provide the caregiver insights as online dialogue. OBB is especially advantageous when participants are located in various geographic locations, time zones, and with differing availabilities (Rolland et al. 2013; Nyumba et al. 2018). This methodology will guide the caregiver discussions, optimize the gathering of caregiver insights, and facilitate interactive activities, including appropriate probes and follow up questions. Since it would be challenging to identify caregivers of higher-risk MDS patients, the research uses convenience sampling with the support of patient organizations. Fifteen participants were targeted for recruitment by patient organizations in their respective countries - Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) Foundation in the US, Aplastic Anemia & Myelodysplasia Association of Canada, and MDS UK Support Group - through outreach to their membership. Participants were to be selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with additional screening by the researchers. Inclusion criteria Caregiver of patient diagnosed with high or very high risk MDS as diagnosed per IPSS-R category or high-risk MDS as per IPSS (intermediate-risk patients on hypomethylating agents (HMAs) will be considered only if it is challenging to recruit caregivers of high and higher-risk patients) Aged 18+ Able to communicate in written English Caregiver is able to provide consent to participate in research Exclusion criteria Caregiver of patient diagnosed with low or very low risk MDS as diagnosed per IPSS-R category or low-risk as per IPSS Caregiver of patients currently active in a clinical trial Paid caregiver who is a nurse or aide We present in this abstract an interim report of the research, which is still ongoing. A total of 16 caregivers participated in the OBB with additional recruitment to cover any potential drop outs or withdrawals - 5 from the US, 6 from the UK, and 5 from Canada. There are 14 female and 2 male caregivers whereby 13 are spouses of the patient, 2 are children of the patient, and 1 is a friend of the patient. Full content analysis will be conducted at the completion of the research. However the interim findings already indicate there are unmet patient and caregiver needs in higher-risk MDS. For example, although the caregiver role for more recently diagnosed patients (≤ 1 year) is perceived as minimal effort, their role increases significantly if a stem cell or bone marrow transplant occurs, and/or if there are changes in the patient's health status (e.g. infection, medication change, managing side effects like nausea). The implications of this vary depending on the personal situation of the caregiver - the ability to continue in any employment and financial consequences if not; the demand on their time if they are balancing family and other commitments; and the impact on their own health particularly if they have their own health issues to manage. Most caregivers can manage the physical and functional aspects of care, however, many state that the bigger unmet need for both patient and caregiver is emotional support, which has not typically been part of the standard of care provided to MDS patients. Disclosures Frank: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sasse:Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,591
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,814

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,006
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→Travaux en français237 207→