Effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions to enhance the quality of life of informal caregivers of patients receiving home-based palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Informal caregivers play a vital role in caring for individuals who choose to spend the end of their life at home. However, this caregiving role often imposes considerable physical, emotional, social and financial burdens that can negatively impact caregivers' quality of life. A comprehensive understanding of the breadth of interventions designed to support caregivers of individuals receiving home-based palliative and end-of-life care is essential, along with insights into how these interventions are perceived by those who have received them. The objective of this review is to synthesise existing evidence on the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions that support informal caregivers of patients receiving home-based palliative care in order to address the caregivers' needs and improve their quality of life. Additionally, this review aims to explore the acceptability and perceived benefits of these interventions from the perspectives of informal caregivers who have received them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cairn.info, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). This review will include studies that focus on adult informal caregivers of adult patients with serious life-threatening illnesses receiving home-based palliative care. Interventional studies that employed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches will be considered. Quantitative studies will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Qualitative studies will encompass research that explores informal caregivers' experiences with the interventions, perceived benefits and barriers and enablers influencing intervention effectiveness. Mixed-methods studies using convergent, embedded or sequential designs will also be included.The search will include studies published in English or French, with no restrictions on the publication period. Study selection, critical appraisal and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure methodological rigour. This review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-methods systematic reviews, using a convergent segregated approach. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required for this study, as it is a literature review that does not involve the collection of primary data. The findings of this review will be disseminated to the scientific community through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, lay summaries will be prepared and shared with the general public and relevant stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO, registration number CRD420251006612.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,094 | 0,097 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,035 | 0,003 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».