Psychosocial Outcomes in Informal Caregivers of the Critically Ill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review was to evaluate and synthesize the prevalence, risk factors, and trajectory of psychosocial morbidity in informal caregivers of critical care survivors. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PsychInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PILOTS, EMBASE, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database was undertaken between January and February 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Citations were screened independently by two reviewers for studies that investigated psychosocial outcomes (depression, anxiety, stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, burden, activity restriction, and health-related quality of life) for informal caregivers of critical care survivors (mechanically ventilated for 48 hr or more). DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study outcomes were extracted into a standardized form and quality assessed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence guide. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were followed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen studies of 1,491 caregivers were included. Depressive symptoms were the most commonly reported outcome with a prevalence of 75.5% during critical care and 22.8-29% at 1-year follow-up. Risk factors for depressive symptoms in caregivers included female gender and younger age. The greatest period of risk for all outcomes was during the patient's critical care admission although psychological symptoms improved over time. The overall quality of the studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms were the most prevalent in informal caregivers of survivors of intensive care who were ventilated for more than 48 hours and persist at 1 year with a prevalence of 22.8-29.0%, which is comparable with caregivers of patients with dementia. Screening for caregiver risks could be performed during the ICU admission where intervention can be implemented and then evaluated. Further high-quality studies are needed to quantify anxiety, stress, caregiver burden, and posttraumatic stress disorder outcomes in informal caregivers of long-stay patients surviving ICU.
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".