Review: counselling and education may improve outcomes in caregivers of patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visser-Meily A, van Heugten C, Post M, et al . Intervention studies for caregivers of stroke survivors: a critical review. Patient Educ Couns 2005;56:257–67.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the effectiveness of different types of interventions for caregivers of patients with stroke? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline (1966 to March 2003), PsycINFO (1984 to March 2003), AMED (1985 to March 2003), and CINAHL (1982 to March 2003). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), clinical trials, or uncontrolled trials with pretest and post-test measurement (published in English, German, or Dutch) that evaluated interventions for caregivers of patients with stroke or interventions for patients with stroke and their caregivers if the intervention for caregivers was described; and reported relevant outcome measures for caregivers. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Outcomes: caregiver quality of life, emotional state, burden, family functioning, social activity in daily life, coping, satisfaction with care, knowledge about stroke, and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPatient%2Beducation%2Band%2Bcounseling%26rft.stitle%253DPatient%2BEduc%2BCouns%26rft.aulast%253DVisser-Meily%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D56%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D257%26rft.epage%253D267%26rft.atitle%253DIntervention%2Bstudies%2Bfor%2Bcaregivers%2Bof%2Bstroke%2Bsurvivors%253A%2Ba%2Bcritical%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.pec.2004.02.013%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15721967%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.013&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15721967&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F4%2F119.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227590200002&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".