The effect of Liver Transplantation on the quality of life of the recipient's main caregiver – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation (LT) is a transformative, life-saving procedure with life-long sequale for patients and their caregivers. The impact of LT on the patient's main caregiver can be underestimated. We carried out a systematic review of the impact of LT on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) of LT patients' main caregivers. We searched 13 medical databases from 1996 to 2015. We included studies with HRQL data on caregivers of patients following LT then quality assessed and narratively synthesized the findings from these studies. Of 7076 initial hits, only five studies fell within the scope of this study. In general, they showed caregiver burden persisted in the early period following LT. One study showed improvements, however, the other four showed caregiver's levels of stress, anxiety and depression, remained similar or got worse post-LT and remained above that of the normal population. It was suggested that HRQL of the patient impacted on the caregiver and vice versa and may be linked to patient outcomes. No data were available investigating which groups were at particular risk of low HRQL following LT or if any interventions could improve this. The current information about LT caregivers' needs and factors that impact on their HRQL are not adequately defined. Large studies are needed to examine the effects of LT on the patients' family and caregivers to understand the importance of caregiver support to maximize outcomes of LT for the patient and their 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".