MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753419941 · doi:10.1186/s12904-017-0231-y

Honoring the voices of bereaved caregivers: a Metasummary of qualitative research

2017· review· en· W2753419941 on OpenAlex
Lorraine Holtslander, Sharon Baxter, Kelly J. Mills, Sarah Bocking, Tina Dadgostari, Wendy Duggleby, Vicky Duncan, Peter Hudson, Agatha Ogunkorode, Shelley Peacock

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Hospice Palliative Care AssociationUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsQualitative researchPain medicinePsychologyMedicineNursingSociologyPsychiatrySocial scienceAnesthesiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Family caregiving in the context of advanced disease in particular, can be physically and emotionally taxing. Caregivers can subsequently face bereavement exhausted with few supports, limited resources and a significant proportion will develop negative psychological and social outcomes. Although some research has attended to the bereavement experiences of family caregivers who had cared for a person requiring palliative care, a comprehensive qualitative understanding of the impact of caregiving on bereavement has not been articulated. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative metasummary to explore the experiences of bereaved family caregivers of people who received palliative care services, regardless of their underlying disease. METHODS: Sandelowski and Barroso's qualitative metasummary method was utilized: 1287 articles were identified through extensive database searches (i.e. - MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL) and reviewed to determine if they fit the criteria. Those included in the review were assessed for study quality. Findings from each study were then thematically coded and a frequency of themes was calculated. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 47 qualitative studies. A total of 15 themes emerged. In descending order of frequency, the 15 themes were: the individual emotions of serenity, sadness, guilt, uncertainty, trauma, escape, and anger; post-loss experiences that helped the caregiver in bereavement; post-loss experiences that hindered; practical life changes; caregiver role identity; pre-loss experiences that helped; pre-loss experiences that hindered; caregiver context; and a need for different kinds of supports. Three key findings emerged from the themes: (1) many different aspects of the caregiving experience impact the bereavement experience, (2) every bereavement experience is unique, and (3) a variety of supports must be developed and made available to caregivers to meet these unique needs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the metasummary findings, changes are needed in practice and policy to ensure the health and well-being of the family caregiver is maintained by offering support both during caregiving and bereavement.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.024 · 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