Neglected Needs of Family Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic and What They Need Now: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 has had a negative impact on family caregivers, whether the care receivers lived with the caregiver, in a separate community home, in supportive living, or in long-term care. This qualitative study examines the points of view of family caregivers who care in diverse settings. Family caregivers were asked to describe what could have been done to support them during the COVID-19 pandemic and to suggest supports they need in the future as the pandemic wanes. Thorne's interpretive qualitative methodology was employed to examine current caregiver concerns. Thirty-two family caregivers participated. Family caregivers thought the under-resourced, continuing care system delayed pandemic planning, and that silos in health and community systems made caregiving more difficult. Family caregivers want their roles to be recognized in policy, and they cite the need for improvements in communication and navigation. The growth in demand for family caregivers and their contributions to the healthcare system make it critical that the family caregiver role be recognized in policy, funding, and practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".