MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034728350 · doi:10.1177/1049909112474712

A Comparison of Support Needs Between Rural and Urban Family Caregivers Providing Palliative Care

2013· article· en· W2034728350 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kevin Brazil, Sharon Kaasalainen, Allison Williams, Serge Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineEmotional supportTelephone surveyFamily caregiversFamily medicineNursingRural areaNeeds assessmentGerontologySocial supportPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the support needs for urban and rural family caregivers of a palliative family member using a cross-sectional telephone survey in northeastern Ontario, Canada (n = 140; 70 urban, 70 rural). Support needs identified as most important by both the groups were informational. Rural caregivers reported greater unmet needs in tangible support (P = .01). No differences were observed between the groups for emotional or informational support needs (P = .25 and P = .35, respectively). Rural and urban caregivers perceived care for care recipients as accessible (mean accessibility score 1.9, standard deviation [SD] = 0.09 and 1.7, SD = 0.7, respectively, P = .20); the majority indicated that when needed, services were easily and quickly obtained. Although there are similarities in the formal care experiences, rural caregivers experience greater unmet needs in receiving support for instrumental activities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207