Family Caregivers’ Preparedness to Support the Physical Activity of Patients at Risk for Hospital Readmission in Rural Communities: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physical activity in the post-discharge period is important to maximize patient recovery and prevent hospital readmission. Healthcare providers have identified family caregivers as potential facilitators of patients’ engagement in physical activity. Yet, there is very little research on family caregivers’ perspectives on their preparedness to support the physical activity of patients, particularly those at risk for hospital readmission in rural communities. Accordingly, this study explored family caregivers’ perspectives on their preparedness to support the physical activity of a recently discharged, rural-dwelling relative at risk for hospital readmission. Methods In this qualitative descriptive study, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with sixteen family caregivers. Interview transcripts were analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis. Results Participants were predominantly women (n = 14; 87.5%) with an average age of 49 years (range 26–67) who were the primary caregivers of a relative who had been hospitalized for a medical illness (n = 12; 63%) and was at high risk for hospital readmission. Four themes were identified: 1) family caregivers felt unprepared to support their relative’s physical activity, 2) family caregivers believed that rest was more important than physical activity to their relative’s recovery, 3) insufficient preparation for physical activity led to family caregiver-relative conflicts, and 4) to defuse these conflicts, some family caregivers wanted healthcare providers to be responsible for promoting physical activity. Conclusions Despite assertions that family caregivers are a potential source of support for patient physical activity, our findings indicate that family caregivers are largely unprepared to assume that role and that more work needs to be done to ensure they can do so effectively. We suggest that healthcare providers be conscious of the potential for family caregiver-relative conflict surrounding physical activity, assess family caregivers’ ability and willingness to support physical activity, educate them on the hazards of inactivity, and provide physical activity instructions to family caregivers and patients conjointly. Preparing family caregivers to support their relative’s physical activity is particularly important given the current emphasis on early discharge in many jurisdictions, and the limited formal healthcare services available in rural communities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".