As experiências de cuidadores informais de pacientes em tratamento oncológico paliativo: uma revisão integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: agrupar, sintetizar e integrar a literatura acerca das experiências de cuidadores informais que prestam cuidados a pacientes oncológicos em tratamento paliativo. Método: revisão integrativa de literatura usando a metodologia proposta por Ganong. As buscas foram realizadas nas bases de dados Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) e Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). A estratégia de busca foi composta por termos do Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) e suas versões em inglês e português. Após formulada a estratégia de busca, a mesma foi revisada por uma especialista em revisões sistemáticas para garantir rigorosidade. Resultados: vinte e quatro artigos foram selecionados, e abordavam aspectos referentes a importância de cuidar do ente querido, desafios enfrentados, e recursos utilizados durante o processo morte e morrer. Conclusão: esta revisão traz evidência da falta de suporte e recursos enfrentados por cuidadores informais de pacientes oncológicos paliativos. Assim como, demonstra a necessidade de novas pesquisas sobre esse tópico já que todos os estudos mencionaram a falta de pesquisa nessa área.
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 | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".