Sleeping with One Eye Open: The Sleep experience of Family Members Providing Palliative Care at Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To empirically describe the sleep experience of family caregivers (n=13) of advanced cancer patients. METHOD: Mixed methodology using: family interviews; Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); and actigraphy measurement. Qualitative data analysis utilized constant comparative content techniques. Actiware for the actigraphy data and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences-15 (SPSS-15) generated descriptive and correlation statistics. FINDINGS: The overarching theme "sleeping with one eye open" captures the vigilant nature of caregivers' sleep experiences. Caregiver narratives were validated by quantitative findings: 5 of the family caregivers (38.5 percent) had an ESS score > or =11 indicative of excessive daytime sleepiness, all caregivers had a PSQI global score >5 indicative of moderate to severe sleep problems, and actigraphy scores--including total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and time awake after sleep onset--fell beyond normal values documented in the literature. CONCLUSION: Impeccable assessment of the patient's and family's sleep status, sleep education, intervention strategies, and high-quality respite services are critical in community-based palliative care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".