Experiences of informal caregivers after cardiac surgery: a systematic integrated review of qualitative and quantitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive synthesis of informal caregivers' experiences of caring for a significant other following discharge from cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic integrated review without meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A bibliographic search for publications indexed in six databases (Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PsycINFO), including a scan of grey literature sources (GreyNet International, Google Scholar, Web of Science, WorldCat and the Clinical Trials Registry) was conducted in October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies were included if they described views and perspectives of informal caregivers of cardiac surgery patients (non-intervention studies (qualitative and quantitative)), and the effectiveness of interventions to evaluate support programme for informal caregivers of cardiac surgery patients (intervention studies). RESULTS: Of the 4912 articles identified in searches, 42 primary research studies were included in a narrative synthesis with 5292 participants, including 3231 (62%) caregivers of whom 2557 (79%) were women. The median sample size across studies was 96 (range 6-734). Three major themes emerged from the qualitative study data: (1) caregiver information needs; (2) caregiver work challenges and (3) caregivers adaption to recovery. Across the observational studies (n=22), similar themes were found. The trend across seven intervention studies focused on caregiver information needs related to patient disease management and symptom monitoring, and support for caregivers to reduce symptoms of emotional distress. CONCLUSION: Informal caregivers want to assist in the care of their significant others after hospital discharge postcardiac surgery. However, caregivers feel insecure and overwhelmed and they lack clear/concise discharge information and follow-up support during the early at-home recovery period. The burden of caregiving has been recognised and reported since the early 1990s, but there remains a limited number of studies that assesses the effectiveness of caregiver interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096590.
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 | 0.066 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".