Guidelines for the Psychosocial and Bereavement Support of Family Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Support for family caregivers, including bereavement follow-up, is a core function of palliative care. Many caregivers acknowledge positive aspects associated with the role; however a considerable proportion will experience poor psychological, social, financial, spiritual, and physical well-being and some will suffer from complicated grief. Many family caregivers have unmet needs and would like more information, preparation, and support to assist them in the caregiving role. There is a shortage of evidence-based strategies to guide health professionals in providing optimal support while the caregiver is providing care and after the patient's death. PURPOSE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial and bereavement support of family caregivers of palliative care patients. METHODS: (1) Literature review; (2) focus groups and structured interviews with key stakeholders within Australia; (3) national and international expert opinion to further develop and refine the guidelines using a modified Delphi process; and (4) endorsement of the guidelines from key palliative care, caregiver, and bereavement organizations (national and international). RESULTS: The guidelines were developed for multidisciplinary health care professionals and clinical services commonly involved in caring for adult patients receiving palliative care in a variety of care sites throughout Australia. These consensus-based guidelines have been endorsed key Australian and international organizations. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines may prove valuable for the international palliative care community and for generalist health care providers who occasionally care for palliative care patients. Research is recommended to explore the uptake, implementation, and effectiveness of the guidelines.
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 | 0.044 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".