MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3096332592 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138670

Experiences and Support Needs of Caregivers of Patients with Higher-Risk MDS: Qualitative Insights Via Online Bulletin Board in the US, UK, and Canada

2020· article· en· W3096332592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauline Frank, Emma Chen Sasse

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupPsychologyGerontologyDiseaseQualitative researchMedicineMedical educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher-risk MDS patients and caregivers can face many challenges in the course of the disease and disease management. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers can both experience physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and functional issues. Research on the burden of caring for advanced cancer patients suggest that there is insufficient support for caregivers, which might be due to the lack of knowledge about their needs and burdens (Friðriksdóttir et al. 2011; Chambers et al. 2012; Sklenarova et al. 2015). The overall experience of caregivers for MDS patients has not been evaluated to date. Our key research questions are related to: Caregiver role before, during, and after diagnosis; and along the disease journeyImpact on the caregiver's life and well-being; consequently their areas of need for supportImpact of decisions made, including treatments We used the online bulletin board (OBB) as the qualitative research methodology for this research. OBB enables data collection via a web-based platform. This innovative type of online focus group, can generate more meaningful and impactful insights compared to traditional focus groups (Reid et al. 2005). A mix of moderator-led Q&A and participant discussion will provide the caregiver insights as online dialogue. OBB is especially advantageous when participants are located in various geographic locations, time zones, and with differing availabilities (Rolland et al. 2013; Nyumba et al. 2018). This methodology will guide the caregiver discussions, optimize the gathering of caregiver insights, and facilitate interactive activities, including appropriate probes and follow up questions. Since it would be challenging to identify caregivers of higher-risk MDS patients, the research uses convenience sampling with the support of patient organizations. Fifteen participants were targeted for recruitment by patient organizations in their respective countries - Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) Foundation in the US, Aplastic Anemia & Myelodysplasia Association of Canada, and MDS UK Support Group - through outreach to their membership. Participants were to be selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with additional screening by the researchers. Inclusion criteria Caregiver of patient diagnosed with high or very high risk MDS as diagnosed per IPSS-R category or high-risk MDS as per IPSS (intermediate-risk patients on hypomethylating agents (HMAs) will be considered only if it is challenging to recruit caregivers of high and higher-risk patients) Aged 18+ Able to communicate in written English Caregiver is able to provide consent to participate in research Exclusion criteria Caregiver of patient diagnosed with low or very low risk MDS as diagnosed per IPSS-R category or low-risk as per IPSS Caregiver of patients currently active in a clinical trial Paid caregiver who is a nurse or aide We present in this abstract an interim report of the research, which is still ongoing. A total of 16 caregivers participated in the OBB with additional recruitment to cover any potential drop outs or withdrawals - 5 from the US, 6 from the UK, and 5 from Canada. There are 14 female and 2 male caregivers whereby 13 are spouses of the patient, 2 are children of the patient, and 1 is a friend of the patient. Full content analysis will be conducted at the completion of the research. However the interim findings already indicate there are unmet patient and caregiver needs in higher-risk MDS. For example, although the caregiver role for more recently diagnosed patients (≤ 1 year) is perceived as minimal effort, their role increases significantly if a stem cell or bone marrow transplant occurs, and/or if there are changes in the patient's health status (e.g. infection, medication change, managing side effects like nausea). The implications of this vary depending on the personal situation of the caregiver - the ability to continue in any employment and financial consequences if not; the demand on their time if they are balancing family and other commitments; and the impact on their own health particularly if they have their own health issues to manage. Most caregivers can manage the physical and functional aspects of care, however, many state that the bigger unmet need for both patient and caregiver is emotional support, which has not typically been part of the standard of care provided to MDS patients. Disclosures Frank: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sasse:Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→