A 10-year literature review of family caregiving for motor neurone disease: Moving from caregiver burden studies to palliative care interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing awareness that different terminal diseases translate into different family caregiver experiences, and the palliative and supportive care needs of these families are both similar and unique. Family members caring for people with motor neurone disease may experience exceptional strain due to the usually rapid and progressive nature of this terminal illness. AIM: The purpose of this review is to synthesize contemporary research and provide a comprehensive summary of findings relevant to motor neurone disease family caregivers, as well as highlight some of the suggested interventions to alleviate burden and improve quality of life for this group. DESIGN: We conducted a comprehensive review of empirical research on family caregiving for people with motor neurone disease in peer-reviewed journals published in English, January 2000-April 2011. Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: This comprehensive literature review was consistent with previous research documenting the substantial burden and distress experienced by motor neurone disease family caregivers and revealed important points in the trajectory of care that have the potential for negative effects. The diagnosis experience, assisted ventilation, cognitive changes and end-of-life decision making create challenges within a short time. This review has also implicated the need for improvements in access to palliative care services and highlighted the absence of interventions to improve care. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver burden and quality-of-life studies on motor neurone disease family caregivers have so far dominated the research landscape .The focus needs to be on developing interventions that provide direct practical and psychosocial supports for motor neurone disease family caregivers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".