MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Well-being in informal caregivers of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome*

2005· article· en· W2021963358 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jill I. Cameron, Margaret S. Herridge, Catherine M. Tansey, Mary Pat McAndrews, Angela M. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionSocial supportQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationDistressClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryGerontologyPsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: With limited community services, the complex rehabilitation period after critical illness is often the responsibility of family members who, as a result, may experience negative health outcomes. The objectives of this research were to a) identify aspects of the caregiving situation that are associated with caregivers' experiences of emotional distress and psychological well-being; and b) compare health-related quality of life of informal caregivers to survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with age- and gender-matched population values. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of informal caregivers to ARDS survivors. SETTING: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Informal caregivers were individuals who were primarily responsible for providing and/or coordinating ARDS survivors' posthospital care and were not paid to do so. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The dependent variables were emotional distress, psychological well-being, and health-related quality of life. They were evaluated by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, the Positive Affect Scale, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, respectively. Independent variables included severity of illness indicators, patient depression (Beck Depression Inventory II), aspects of the caregiving experience (care provided, lifestyle interference, personal gain), and psychosocial resources (mastery and social support). Caregivers experienced more emotional distress when they experienced more lifestyle interference, had lower levels of mastery, and were caring for ARDS survivors with more depressive symptoms (F3,42 = 15.69, p < .001, adjusted R = .50). In contrast, caregiver psychological well-being was associated with personal gains as a result of providing care and having more mastery and social support (F4,41 = 9.40, p < .001, adjusted R = .43). Caregivers reported poorer health-related quality of life across all domains of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 compared with age- and gender-matched population values. CONCLUSIONS: Informal caregivers experience negative health outcomes that persist almost 2 yrs after ARDS. New approaches, such as family-centered rehabilitation, caregiver education, improved respite, and home care, may benefit informal caregivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations111
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207