The determinants of the intensity of home-based informal care among cancer patients in receipt of home-based palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the determinants of the intensity of informal care may assist policy makers in the identification of supports for informal caregivers. Little is known about the utilization of informal care throughout the palliative care trajectory. AIM: The purpose of this study was to analyze the intensity and determinants of the use of informal care among cancer patients over the palliative care trajectory. DESIGN: This was a longitudinal, prospective cohort design conducted in Canada. Regression analysis using instrumental variables was applied. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From November 2013 to August 2017, a total of 273 caregivers of cancer patients were interviewed biweekly over the course of the care recipient's palliative care trajectory. The outcome was the number of hours of informal care provided by unpaid caregivers, that is, hours of informal care. RESULTS: The number of hours of informal care increased as patients approached death. Home-based nursing care complemented, and hence, increased the provision of informal care. Patients living alone and caregivers who were employed were associated with the provision of fewer hours of informal care. Spousal caregivers provided more hours of informal care. Patient's age, sex, and marital status, and caregiver's age, sex, marital status, and education were associated with the number of hours of informal care. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of informal care was determined by predisposing, enabling, and needs-based factors. This study provides a reference for the planning and targeting of supports for the provision of informal care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".