Spirituality among family caregivers in palliative care: an integrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family caregivers experience spiritual and existential concerns while caring for their terminally ill family members. AIM: To evaluate and synthesise studies on spirituality among family caregivers in palliative care. DESIGN: An integrative literature review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016. SAMPLE: Participants were family caregivers (parents, spouses, relatives or friends) caring for an adult (age>18 years) family member with a terminal illness in a palliative care setting. RESULTS: Data from 26 published research papers were systematically analysed. Five themes were identified regarding spirituality and family caregiving: a close and meaningful connection, spirituality as a way of coping, spiritual needs and expressions among family caregivers, spirituality to transcend fears, and spirituality in family caregivers' decision-making. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses are encouraged to explore the spirituality and spiritual experiences of family caregivers to support their spiritual wellbeing while caring for their terminally ill family members.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".