Prolonged mechanical ventilation and caregiver strain: Home vs. long-term care facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The number of patients treated with prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) is steadily rising. Traditionally treated within specialized long-term care facilities (LTCFs), healthcare providers are increasingly promoting homecare as a technologically safe, humane, and cheaper alternative. Little is known concerning their informal caregivers (ICGs), despite their crucial role in facilitating care. This study examines caregiver strain among the primary ICG of PMV patients treated at home vs. LTCF. Method This study was an observational cross-sectional study. The study enrolled 120/123 PMV patients ≥18 years within the study region (46 treated with homecare/74 treated at the LTCF) and 106 ICGs (34 ICGs/46 homecare patients and 72 ICGs/74 LTCF patients). Caregiver assessment included the 13-item Modified Caregiver Strain Index (Mod CSI) (0–26 maximum); patient assessment included symptom burden (the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). Results The mean age of ICGs was 58.9 years old; 60.4% were females; 82.1% were married; 29.2% were patient's spouses; and 40.6% were patient's children. The total Mod CSI was 13.58 (SD 6.52) and similar between home vs. LTCF (14.30 SD 7.50 vs. 13.26 SD 6.03, p = 0.50), or communicative vs. non-communicative patients (13.50 SD 7.12 vs. 13.64 SD 6.04, p = 0.93). Hierarchical analysis identified three clusters of caregiver strain, with ICGs at home vs. LTCF reporting significantly lower mood strain, higher burden, and similar levels of lifestyle disturbance. In adjusted models, homecare was significantly associated with reduced mood strain and increased burden, while increased patient symptomatology was significantly associated with total strain, mood, and burden strain clusters. Significance of results Recognizing the different patterns of caregiver strain at home or LTCF is a prerequisite for addressing their palliative care needs and improving the wellbeing and resilience of informal caregivers, who often play a critical role in deciding whether to treat the PMV patient at home or LTCF.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".