Helping family doctors detect vulnerable caregivers after an emergency department visit for an elderly relative: results of a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family doctors have been ascribed a role in monitoring patients and their informal caregivers. Little is known about the factors that might alert physicians to changing circumstances or needs of the caregivers. The study objective was to examine changes in family caregivers' quality of life following an emergency department (ED) visit by an older community-dwelling relative that might cue doctors to subsequent caregiver distress. METHODS: A longitudinal study with follow-up at 1- and 4-months was conducted in the EDs of 4 hospitals in Montreal, Canada. Caregivers reported on demographics and quality of life (SF-36). Patients reported on demographics and functional disability. Multiple linear regression for repeated measures was used to evaluate changes in caregiver quality of life and factors related to these changes. RESULTS: 159 caregivers (60.5 yrs +/- 15.8%; 73.0% female), including 68 (42.8%) spouses, 60 (37.7%) adult children, and 31 (19.5%) other relatives participated. Following an initial ED visit by older relatives, caregiver general health and physical functioning declined over time, while mental health status improved. Compared to the other relative caregiver group, spouses were at increased risk for decline in general health, mental health, and physical functioning at 1 month, while adult children were at increased risk for decline in physical health at 1 month. CONCLUSION: Spouses were most at risk for decline in quality of life. Primary care physicians who become aware of an ED visit by an elderly person may be alerted to possible subsequent deterioration in family caregivers, especially spouses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".