Interventions to Support Informal Caregivers of People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes tremendous challenges for both patients and informal caregivers. Caregivers are key players in the management of COPD. Recently, COVID-19 further increased reliance on informal caregivers who urgently need specific support. This systematic literature review aimed to systematically describe the content and explore the effects of interventions to support informal caregivers of people with COPD. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO were searched. Studies implementing interventions supporting informal caregivers of people with COPD were included. Data were extracted and analysed in outcome domains and categories using framework analysis. RESULTS: Twenty (14 quantitative, 4 mixed-methods, and 2 qualitative) studies were included. Informal caregivers were mainly female (86%). Caregiving context was poorly/never described. Interventions included patient-caregiver dyads and never caregivers only. Informal caregivers were invited to participate if available. Interventions were delivered across all COPD phases (acute/stable/advanced) and settings (inpatient/outpatient/home), with a wide range of total length, frequency, and duration of sessions. All included education about the disease and its management. Discharge/action plans (n = 12); adherence to therapy and healthy lifestyles (n = 9); and family concerns and psychosocial issues (n = 7) were also commonly addressed. Only 9 (45%) studies reported caregiver-related outcomes, and overall positive effects were observed in 7/9 outcome domains, using a high variety of qualitative and qualitative methods. Often categories were addressed but not assessed. CONCLUSION: Interventions have a narrow scope (i.e., education) and have not been specifically designed to support informal caregivers. Current evidence showed positive effects, but high methodological heterogeneity exists. Future studies need to explore caregiver-tailored, taking into consideration gender differences; multicomponent; and flexibly administered interventions to effectively support COPD 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it