Family caregiving for persons with advanced heart failure: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The unique needs of caregivers of those with advanced heart failure (HF) are not effectively being met, and reports of physical and mental health challenges are common. The objective is to identify the current state of the literature related to family caregivers of persons with advanced HF, ascertain gaps that require further exploration, and provide preliminary practice recommendations based on the results. METHOD: Systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature. A search of CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed identified 24 articles that met inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using the constant comparison method and coded. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes. RESULT: Sixteen qualitative and seven quantitative studies met inclusion criteria. Analysis of these studies identified six key areas: (1) undertaking a journey in a state of flux, (2) gaining strength, (3) forgetting oneself along the way, (4) seeking out sources of support, (5) preparing for end of life, and (6) finding closure. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The healthcare system currently struggles to meet the care demands of patients with chronic conditions such as advanced HF; as such, informal caregivers are undertaking key roles in the management of symptoms and promotion of the health of those with advanced HF. When caregivers are not adequately prepared for their role, both patient and caregiver well-being is compromised; therefore, a deeper understanding of the caregiving experience could assist in identifying the cause of caregiver anxiety and result in the development of strategies to minimize its effects. Overall, this review will also contribute to improving the current practice when working with caregivers of persons with advanced HF and serve as a basis for development of evidence informed interventions in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".