Qualitative Study: Exploring the Experiences of Family Caregivers within an Inpatient Neurology and Neurosurgery Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to further understanding of what it means for family caregivers to be included in their relatives' care and identify what type of care they are providing. This study used a qualitative research design to recruit 12 participants, who were family caregivers, from the adult neurology and neurosurgery units at a hospital located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The data were collected using semistructured interviews, which were conducted in person and ranged between 30 and 60 minutes in length. Analysis of the data was conducted using phenomenological guidelines and principles. Upon review, the results indicated that the participants shared common experiences that were grouped into three main themes: (1) unfamiliarity with the hospital environment and procedures, (2) identifying the hidden realities of families and caregivers, and (3) strengthening collaborative dialogues and opportunities. Overall, this study exemplified that the need to continue to recognize family caregivers' experiences and their involvement is paramount in being able to understand how and in what way patient care can be better optimized collaboratively, during treatment delivery and recovery stages.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".