Understanding Burden in Caregivers of Adults With Dysphagia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A previous review suggested that dysphagia is negatively associated with burden in caregivers of community-dwelling older adults. Other literature suggests similar patterns of burden may be found across adult patient populations. The current study, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted to determine the impact of dysphagia on caregivers of adults, regardless of etiology. METHOD: Five electronic databases were searched using terms based on a review by Namasivayam-MacDonald and Shune (2018) but included all adults rather than only older adults. Searches were limited to English-language empirical studies discussing caregiver burden, included caregivers of adult care recipients, had some care recipients with dysphagia, did not include palliative care, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: The search yielded 1,112 unique abstracts, of which 17 were accepted. Across studies, caregiver burden was found to increase due to dysphagia in care recipients. Commonly reported dysphagia-related causes of burden included changes in meal preparation, disruption in lifestyle, effects on social life, lack of support, insertion of feeding tubes, and fear of aspiration. In general, dysphagia-related caregiver burden was a common experience across caregivers, regardless of patient population, caregiver age, and relationship between caregiver and care recipient. Meta-analyses suggest 71% of caregivers of adults with dysphagia experience some degree of burden. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that dysphagia negatively impacts caregiver burden and suggests sources of burden that clinicians can address within dysphagia management to support caregivers. However, more research is needed to better delineate sources of burden, especially those specific to various dysphagia etiologies, to better meet the needs of our patients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".