Caregivers’ contributions to heart failure self-care: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review answering the following questions: (a) what specific activities do caregivers (CGs) contribute to patients' self-care in heart failure (HF)?; and (b) how mature (or developed) is the science of the CG contribution to self-care? METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the terms heart failure and caregiv* as well as the keywords 'careers', 'family members' and 'lay persons' for studies published between 1948 and September 2012. Inclusion criteria for studies were: informal CGs of adult HF patients-either as dependent/independent variable in quantitative studies or participant in qualitative studies; English language. Exclusion criteria for studies were: formal CGs; pediatric, adult congenital, or devices or transplant CGs; mixed diagnosis; non-empiric reports or reports publishing duplicate results. Each study was abstracted and confirmed by two authors. After CG activities were identified and theoretically categorized, an analysis across studies was conducted. RESULTS: Forty papers were reviewed from a pool of 283 papers. CGs contribute substantively to HF patients' self-care characterized from concrete (weighing the patient) to interpersonal (providing understanding). Only two studies attempted to quantify the impact of CGs' activities on patients' self-care reporting a positive impact. Our analysis provides evidence for a rapidly developing science that is based largely on observational research. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine CGs' contributions in depth. Informal caregivers play a major role in HF self-care. Longitudinal research is needed to examine the impact of CGs' contributions on patient self-care outcomes.
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 | 0.024 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".