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 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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".