A metasynthesis study of family caregivers’ transition experiences caring for community-dwelling persons with advanced cancer at the end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family caregivers (broadly defined as family and friends) experience multiple concurrent transitions when caring for a person with advanced cancer. AIMS: To (a) explore the transition experience of family caregivers caring for persons with advanced cancer living in the community, (b) describe potential triggers for transitions, (c) identify what influences this experience, and (d) develop a conceptual framework of their transition experience. DESIGN: Sandelowski and Barroso's methodology for synthesizing qualitative research included (a) a comprehensive search of empirical literature, (b) quality appraisal of qualitative studies, (c) classification of studies, and (d) synthesis of the findings. DATA SOURCES: Literature was sourced from six electronic data bases. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) published qualitative studies (and mixed-method designs) of the caregiving experience of family caregivers of community-living persons with advanced cancer at the end of life, (b) participants (caregivers and care recipients) of 18 years of age and above, (c) studies published in English in any country, and (d) studies published between 2004 and 2014. RESULTS: A total of 72 studies were included in the metasynthesis. Family caregivers experience a "life transition" whereby their lives are permanently altered. The participants described the process of redefining normal which consisted of coming to terms with their situation and connecting with others. Outcomes of these processes were as follows: (a) maintaining a sense of personhood, (b) reframing hope, (c) maintaining self-efficacy, (d) finding meaning, and (e) preparing for the death of their care recipient. CONCLUSION: The findings provide a framework to guide the development of supportive programs and future research.
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 | 0.034 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".