Understanding the value and impacts of informal care for people living with poor mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Our survey of more than 700 caregivers across Europe and Canada highlights the tremendous and too often hidden value of caregiving. In short informal carers are fundamental to the functioning of any health and social care system; it is critical to therefore to invest in measures to support these caregivers and identify potential risk factors that might lead to a breakdown in caregiving support. Objectives To identify the importance of family care in the context of modern community mental health services. Methods Survey questionaire and interview of family members. A survey was developed in consultation with EUFAMI. Results The average length of the caring week exceeds the length of the working week On average informal carers provide more than 43 hours of care every week, well in excess of the average working week. Conclusions Family care needs to be recognised as a significant part of the overall care package in differenct countries. Govenments need to acknowledge the real cost of care. In our report we have highlighted that the average caring week is much longer than the working week, and that this is over 60 hours per week for carers who live with the person that the care for. We have highlighted major detrimental effects on carer quality of life, as well as high levels of loneliness. We have also noted that more than a quarter of all carers have a depression or anxiety disorder. We have seen wider adverse impacts on potential career and education prospects as well as financial worries. Disclosure This survey and report were possible thanks to the sponsorship of Ferrer Internacional S.A, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Lundbeck A/S and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Europe Ltd. The sponsors did not have any influence over the content
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".