MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514178740 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.11.558

Patient Self-Perceived Burden and Caregiver Burden in Recipients of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Longitudinal Study Examining Gender Differences

2016· article· en· W2514178740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sara Beattie, Sophie Lebel, Laura E. Labelle, Danielle Petricone‐Westwood, Cheryl Harris, Keith G. Wilson, Gerald M. Devins, Lothar Huebsch, Jason Tay

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationStem cellHaematopoiesisLongitudinal studyOncologyCaregiver burdenHematopoietic cellGerontologyInternal medicineDiseasePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, HSCT centres have shifted to performing outpatient HSCTs. Despite close medical supervision, this shifts the "burden of care" to the patient's caregiver. This places additional physical, emotional and social stresses on the caregiver which can lead to caregiver distress. Likewise, patients may feel less able to contribute, leading to guilt and concern for their caregiver's well-being, also known as self perceived burden (SPB). Moreover, patient SPB is associated with distress which has been negatively correlated with post-transplant outcomes. We sought to document patient SPB and caregiver burden over the HSCT trajectory and to assess potential gender differences in the perception of burden. HSCT recipients and their spousal caregivers were consecutively recruited prior to HSCT from The Ottawa General Hospital between March 2011 and September 2012. Patients completed the SPB Scale, and caregivers completed the Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale (to assess burden) at three time points: pre-transplantation, 30 days post, and 100 days post-transplant. Gender differences influencing changes in SPB and caregiver burden were examined using a Mixed 2 way ANOVA. Sixty-three dyads were included in the analyses, with 43 autologous and 20 allogeneic HSCTs. There were 39 males and 24 females patients. The mean patient and caregiver ages were 54.4 years and 52.7 years respectively. The underlying diseases were Acute(15%) and Chronic(3%) Leukemia, Myeloma(46%), NHL(26%), HL(4%) and others(6%). Patient SPB decreased significantly across time (F(1,61)=16.66 p<.01), without differences between males and females (F(1,61)=0.193, ns). Overall, gender did not influence the change in patient SPB over time (F(1,61)=1.03, ns). Nonetheless, visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests there may be gender differences at 30 days for patient SPB. Caregiver burden did not change over time (F(2,60)=0.661, ns), no appreciable differences were found between genders (F(2,60)=1.811, ns) and the interaction was not significant (F(2, 60)=0.977, ns). This was the first study to examine SPB in a HSCT patient population. Overall, patient SPB was noticeably lower relative to scores reported for palliative cancer patients, stroke patients, and chronic pain patients. This finding is surprising and warrants further investigation given that in the literature, patient reported quality of life tends to be poor and correlates with SPB. This may relate to the timing of assessment, suggesting that the first 100 days of HSCT, patients are primarily focused on themselves and their needs, paying less attention to the impact they may be having on caregivers. Finally, caregiver burden scores remained elevated for both genders throughout the HSCT trajectory. Psychosocial clinicians should provide support to caregivers, particularly those who express high levels of burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207