Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The support of family caregivers in palliative care is critical and well recognized; yet the fact that caregivers still face significant unmet needs highlights a considerable gap in addressing this issue. Current themes on the caregiving experience in palliative care are presented. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent literature suggests a shift towards a broader understanding of the caregiving experience in palliative care in terms of better integration of caregivers of patients with noncancer illnesses into palliative care, improved continuity of care among different settings and better integration of guidelines and evidence into practice. Several risk groups and factors of caregiving in palliative care have been identified. The literature review emphasizes a public health approach as an important step in addressing the caregivers' burden. While 'the right way' of supporting caregivers is still to be established, consideration of caregivers' roles as co-providers and co-recipients of care offers numerous implications for research and clinical practice. SUMMARY: This review demonstrates the need for the development of specific strategies aimed at supporting informal caregivers in caring for their loved ones in different settings and periods of advanced life-threatening illnesses. Open issues in searching for 'the right way' to care for caregivers in palliative care are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".