Oesophageal cancer: caregiver mental health and strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate strain and mental health among family caregivers of oesophageal cancer patients and possible factors associated with caregiver mental health and strain. METHODS: Patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma in Ireland were recruited into the FINBAR study (the main aim of which was to investigate factors influencing the Barrett's adenocarcinoma relationship). Carers completed the 13-item Caregiver Strain Index and the General Health Questionnaire-30 (GHQ) in the context of a brief interview with trained research staff that was undertaken separately from the interview with each cancer patient. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-seven patients participated in the FINBAR study. A total of 39 patients did not have a family carer or the carer could not be identified. Fifty percent (94/188) of carers completed the questionnaires. Mean (SD) scores for strain (6.65, SD=3.63) and mental health status (10.21, SD=7.30) were high and 71% of carers scored >5 on the GHQ indicating psychological distress. There was a statistically significant positive relationship between level of strain experienced by caregivers and the severity of their mental health status and whether or not carers scored >5 on the GHQ. Relatives were 1.70 (95% CI 1.34-2.15) times more likely to be defined as high scorers with each unit increase in the CSI score. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of caregivers experienced high levels of strain and psychological distress. There is a need to provide appropriate support and services targeted specifically at reducing the considerable strain of caring for patients with oesophageal cancer, particularly for carers of patients from lower socioeconomic groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".