Family-Reported Outcomes Measures (FROMs) Screening Programs an Integral Part of Chronic Disease Management: A Scoping Review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Caregivers experience physical, psychological, emotional, and practical challenges resulting from their roles and responsibilities. These challenges negatively impact caregivers' health and well-being. Screening for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is now considered a cornerstone of chronic disease management to improve symptom identification and management, quality of life, and survival. Similarly, screening for family-reported outcomes (FROs) could help promote caregivers' health and well-being. Though family-reported outcome measure (FROM) screening programs have emerged, the nature and extent of their development and evaluation in the context of chronic disease remains unknown. This scoping review aimed to identify the extent to which FROM screening programs among caregivers of adults with a chronic disease have been developed and evaluated. PRISMA-ScR and the methods recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute were followed. Four electronic databases (Ovid- Medline(R), Ovid- Classic + Embase, Ovid-APA PsycInfo 1967-onwards, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched iteratively to identify published literature describing FROM screening programs. Secondary search strategies and a search of grey literature were also undertaken. Data were extracted using a standardized table and analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. A total of 38 studies describing 17 unique FROM programs were evaluated. Studies were published between 1999-2024 and primarily from Australia (n = 11), the United States (n = 8), and the United Kingdom (n = 6). Caregivers included (n = 4312) were most commonly spouses of patients with cancer. Screening was primarily used to tailor interventions (rather than monitor symptoms) and focused on caregivers' needs (e.g., information, managing patient symptoms). Nurses typically responded to the screening. Most programs offered three types of follow-up: informational/educational resources, referrals to specialists or community groups, and/or real-time discussion and feedback with the interventionist. Although the FROM programs positively impacted proximal variables (e.g., preparedness), this did not translate to more distal outcomes (e.g., quality of life, anxiety). Future research on the timing of screening, caregiver engagement, and efficacious follow-up interventions is needed.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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