The Experience of Caring for a Spouse Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a major treatment option for patients with hematological malignancies. Spouses are frequently asked to provide physical, psychological, and emotional support in both the acute care and outpatient settings, yet few studies have explored the nature and implications of their caring work beyond the acute care phase. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this exploratory study were to (1) highlight the effect of caregiving on the psychosocial health and well-being of spouses of HSCT recipients; (2) highlight the level of caregiver burden, depression, and/or secondary trauma experienced by spousal caregivers of HSCT recipients; and (3) identify when spouses are most vulnerable to caregiver burden, depression, and/or secondary trauma. METHOD/METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH: A mixed-method exploratory study was undertaken. Participants were followed over 1 year from immediately before transplantation to 1 year after transplantation. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis highlighted the effect of spousal caregiving on psychosocial health and well-being. RESULTS: Eleven spouses participated in the study. Caregivers experienced caregiver burden, psychological distress (depression), and risk for secondary traumatic stress at 3 points in time over 1 year from before transplantation to 1 year after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that spouses may be at risk for adverse psychological effects as a result of their role in providing care for a partner undergoing HSCT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses need to integrate regular psychosocial assessments of caregivers to recognize the early signs of distress and intervene to support and promote psychosocial health and well-being.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".