MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of the Burden of Care in Families of Cardiac Surgery Patients

2000· article· en· W1987364683 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Stolarik, Patrice Lindsay, Heather Sherrard, A. Kirsten Woodend

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Cardiovascular Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBypass graftingStressorArteryCardiac surgeryPopulationIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Burden of care" is a term that describes the effects of the multifaceted stressors associated with providing care to an ill family member. Descriptions of burden of care in acute care populations, such as families of patients who have had coronary artery bypass grafting, are very limited. The three purposes of this study were to describe the burden of care in families of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery patients, to compare the burden of care in families grouped by length of stay, and to provide evidence for the validity of the Caregiving Burden Scale in acute care populations. A survey was done using a longitudinal design over the first six weeks following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. The 124 spouses of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery patients who participated reported a moderate degree of burden in caring for post cardiac surgery family members. Providing emotional support, taking over household tasks, and monitoring patients' conditions created the greatest burden for the participants. Length of stay in hospital did not have an impact on burden of care. The analysis of the data supports the validity of the Care-giving Burden Scale when used in the cardiac surgery population. (Prog Cardiovasc).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Cardiovascular NursingSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207