Support for Informal Caregivers in Canada: A Scoping Review from a Hospice and Palliative/End-of-Life Care Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Informal caregivers (ICs) providing care for those at the end-of-life face physical, psycho-social, emotional, and/or financial challenges. However, there is a paucity of research towards the effectiveness of available interventions for this vulnerable population. The purpose of this scoping review was to investigate the availability and efficacy of interventions for ICs providing hospice and palliative/end-of-life care in Canada. Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley's five step framework, a scoping review was conducted in the spring of 2020. Key electronic healthcare, social sciences, and grey literature databases were searched. Relevant publications from 2005 to 2019 were screened for inclusion criteria, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to summarize all key findings. Results: Initial searches yielded 145 results out of which 114 distinct articles were obtained. De-duplication and final screening yielded 28 sources which met inclusion criteria (22 peer-reviewed articles [78%] and 6 grey sources [22%]; 12 qualitative papers [42%]). Through thematic content analysis, four major themes were identified: [1] Direct financial support, [2] Direct psycho-sociospiritual support, [3] Indirect patient information provision/education, and [4] Indirect patient support. Conclusions: Healthcare practitioners should provide information on patient care and financial aid to ICs. Policies should aim to expand eligibility for and access to financial aid, in particular the Compassionate Care Benefits (CCB). Future research should focus on exploring other interventions, such as physical activities, to better support this vulnerable population. The results from this review will help inform and improve the well-being of ICs providing end-of-life care in Canada and beyond.
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 | 0.020 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".