The experience of caregivers of hematological cancer patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a comprehensive literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is a demanding procedure with associated physical and psychological sequelae that affects patients and their families. Caregivers to HSCT patients not only have to cope with the life-threatening nature of the disease and treatment, but they also have care-giving responsibilities. This study reviews the literature on the psychosocial impact of being a caregiver to a HSCT patient. METHODS: A critical review of the literature published before June 2010 was conducted. Databases searched included CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, and Academic Search Complete, as well as a comprehensive reference review. Studies that pertained to caregivers of children (under the age of 18) undergoing a HSCT or caregivers to patients with non-hematological malignancies were excluded. Sixteen quantitative research articles and three qualitative research articles were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Caregiver distress is highest pre-transplant and decreases over time, and caregivers display distress levels comparable to or higher than patients' reported distress levels. Predictors of caregiver distress include female gender, elevated subjective burden, and higher patient symptom distress. Caregivers reported uncertainty, fear of the future, juggling patients' needs with their own, and difficulties adapting to role changes; however, they also reported positive aspects to care giving, such as personal growth and developing a more positive relationship with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: There are many limitations to the current research and future directions should include both members of the dyad to evaluate the reciprocal relation between caregiver and patient variables, as well as theory-driven research and research with direct clinical applications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".