Caregiving at the end of life: Perspectives from spousal caregivers and care recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the perspectives of both the spousal caregiver and care recipient on the caregiving experience in home-based palliative care. METHODS: A qualitative research strategy involving home-based face-to-face interviews with older palliative care patients and their spousal caregivers was used to examine the caregiving experience. RESULTS: Ten spousal caregivers and care recipient dyads participated in the study. Most informal caregivers viewed caregiving as an extension of the family relationship where caregiving responsibilities evolved over time. Spousal caregivers identified many negative reactions to caregiving, such as fatigue or weariness, depression, anger and sadness, financial stresses, and lack of time. Care recipients acknowledged the emotional and financial strain and expressed concern for their spouses. Both caregivers and care recipients were appreciative of home care services although they identified the need for additional services. They also identified difficulties in communication with formal providers and poor coordination of care among the various services. Both caregivers and care recipients disclosed some challenges with informal supports, but on the whole felt that their presence was positive. Additional positive aspects of caregiving reported by spouses included strengthened relationship with their spouse and discovering emotional strength and physical abilities in managing care. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Health care and social service professionals need to recognize and understand both caregiver and care recipient perspectives if they are to successfully meet the needs of both members of the dyad.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".