Orthopedic Problems in Family Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The studies on caregivers focus more on their psychological impact. The caregivers’ orthopedic problems are not taken into consideration. We aimed to determine the orthopedic problems of the patient family caregivers and to examine the relationship with burden of care.Methods: Caregivers of palliative care who look after the patient recieving palliative care at least two months were included in the study. The outcome measurements: Oswestry neck pain questionnaire,arm shoulder hand disability questionnaire (DASH), Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), Short Form 36 (SF-36), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and BECK depression inventory (BDI).Results: A cross-sectional study was carried our with fourty-two caregivers who averaged 50 years, were mostly female (81%), married (76%) and housewife (59%). Mean DASH score was 18.82, while Oswestry score was 22.18. According to the IPAQ total score, the cases were in the physically active category (10145 MET). In all SF36 subgroup, there was a statistically insignificant decrease compared to normative values (p> 0,05). Total burden score was 38,64. The ZBI correlated with DASH (r = 0,479), WOMAC (r = 0,453), Oswestry (r = 0,645) many SF36 subgroups (p<0,05) and BDI (p<0,001).Conclusion: There are some orthopedic problems besides psychological problems related to the burden of family caregivers. Strategies should be developed to provide education and support for the development of methods for the prevention and treatment of orthopedic problems affecting the quality of life of family 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".