Identifying Family and Unpaid Caregivers in Electronic Health Records: Descriptive Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most efforts to identify caregivers for research use passive approaches such as self-nomination. We describe an approach in which electronic health records (EHRs) can help identify, recruit, and increase diverse representations of family and other unpaid caregivers. OBJECTIVE: Few health systems have implemented systematic processes for identifying caregivers. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an EHR-driven process for identifying veterans likely to have unpaid caregivers in a caregiver survey study. We additionally examined whether there were EHR-derived veteran characteristics associated with veterans having unpaid caregivers. METHODS: We selected EHR home- and community-based referrals suggestive of veterans' need for supportive care from friends or family. We identified veterans with these referrals across the 8 US Department of Veteran Affairs medical centers enrolled in our study. Phone calls to a subset of these veterans confirmed whether they had a caregiver, specifically an unpaid caregiver. We calculated the screening contact rate for unpaid caregivers of veterans using attempted phone screening and for those who completed phone screening. The veteran characteristics from the EHR were compared across referral and screening groups using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of having an unpaid caregiver among veterans who completed phone screening. RESULTS: During the study period, our EHR-driven process identified 12,212 veterans with home- and community-based referrals; 2134 (17.47%) veteran households were called for phone screening. Among the 2134 veterans called, 1367 (64.06%) answered the call, and 813 (38.1%) veterans had a caregiver based on self-report of the veteran, their caregiver, or another person in the household. The unpaid caregiver identification rate was 38.1% and 59.5% among those with an attempted phone screening and completed phone screening, respectively. Veterans had increased odds of having an unpaid caregiver if they were married (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.69, 95% CI 1.68-4.34), had respite care (adjusted OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.41-3.41), or had adult day health care (adjusted OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.60-10.00). Veterans with a dementia diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.89) or veteran-directed care referral (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.97-4.20) were also suggestive of an association with having an unpaid caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: The EHR-driven process to identify veterans likely to have unpaid caregivers is systematic and resource intensive. Approximately 60% (813/1367) of veterans who were successfully screened had unpaid caregivers. In the absence of discrete fields in the EHR, our EHR-driven process can be used to identify unpaid caregivers; however, incorporating caregiver identification fields into the EHR would support a more efficient and systematic identification of caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov NCT03474380; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03474380.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".