Determinants of primary and non‐primary informal care‐giving to home‐based palliative care cancer care‐recipients in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informal care plays an important role in the care of care-recipients. Most of the previous studies focused on the primary caregivers and ignored the importance of non-primary caregivers. Moreover, little is known about the provision of informal care in the context of home-based palliative care. The purpose of this study was to examine the provision of primary and non-primary informal care-giving and their respective determinants. Primary caregivers assume the main responsibility for care, while non-primary caregivers are those other than the primary caregiver who provide care-giving. A longitudinal, prospective cohort design was conducted and data were drawn from two palliative care programs in Canada between November 2013 and August 2017. A total of 273 caregivers of home-based palliative care cancer care-recipients were interviewed biweekly until the care recipient died. The outcomes were the propensity and intensity of informal care-giving. Regression analysis with instrumental variables was used. About 90% of primary caregivers were spouses and children, while 53% of non-primary caregivers were others rather than spouses and children. The average number of hours of primary and non-primary informal care-giving reported for each 2-week interview period was 83 hr and 23 hr, respectively. Hours of home-based personal support workers decreased the intensity of primary care-giving and the likelihood of non-primary care-giving. Home-based nursing visits increased the propensity of non-primary care-giving. The primary care-giving and non-primary care-giving complement each other. Care recipients living alone received less primary informal care-giving. Employed primary caregivers decreased their provision of primary care-giving, but promoted the involvement of non-primary care-giving. Our study has clinical practices and policy implications. Suitable and targeted interventions are encouraged to make sure the provision of primary and non-primary care-giving, to balance the work of the primary caregivers and their care-giving responsibility, and to effectively arrange the formal home-based palliative care services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".