Beyond using composite measures to analyze the effect of unmet supportive care needs on caregivers' anxiety and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Caregiver research has relied on composite measures (eg, count) of unmet supportive care needs to determine relationships with anxiety and depression. Such composite measures assume that all unmet needs have a similar impact on outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify individual unmet needs most associated with caregivers' anxiety and depression. METHODS: Two hundred nineteen caregivers completed the 44-item Supportive Care Needs Survey and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (minimal clinically important difference = 1.5) at 6 to 8 months and 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 years following the patients' cancer diagnosis. The list of needs was reduced using partial least square regression, and those with a variance importance in projection >1 were analyzed using Bayesian model averaging. RESULTS: Across time, 8 items remained in the top 10 based on prevalence and were labelled "core." Three additional ones were labelled "frequent," as they remained in the top 10 from 1 year onwards. Bayesian model averaging identified a maximum of 3 significant unmet needs per time point-all leading to a difference greater than the minimal clinically important difference. For depression, none of the core unmet needs were significant, rather significance was noted for frequent needs and needs that were not prevalent. For anxiety, 3/8 core and 3/3 frequent unmet needs were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Those unmet needs that are most prevalent are not necessarily the most significant ones, and findings provide an evidence-based framework to guide the development of caregiver interventions. A broader contribution is proposing a different approach to identify significant unmet needs.
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 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".