MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311914241 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279187

Family caregivers’ perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study

2022· article· en· W4311914241 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mary Fox, Jeffrey I. Butler, Souraya Sidani, Manal M. Alzghoul, Mark W. Skinner, Travis Amell, Mary Ferguson-Paré

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooTrent UniversityLakehead UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)MedicineFamily caregiversQualitative researchNursingFamily medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to meet this need but family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of the interventions have not been examined. This gap is significant because unacceptable interventions are unlikely to be used or used as designed, thereby undermining outcome achievement. Accordingly, this study examined the perceived acceptability of the four interventions to rural family caregivers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-method descriptive design was used. The quantitative method entailed the administration of an established scale to assess the interventions' perceived acceptability to family caregivers. The qualitative method involved semi-structured interviews to explore family caregivers' perceived acceptability of the interventions in greater depth, including acceptable and unacceptable aspects, in the context of their own transitional care experience. Participants were the family caregivers of a relative who had been discharged home in a rural community from an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The purposive sample included 16 participants who were mostly middle-aged women (n = 14; 87.5%) caring for a parent (n = 9; 56.3%) at high risk for hospital readmission. The mean scores on the acceptability measure were 3 or higher for all interventions, indicating that, on average, the four interventions were perceived as acceptable. In terms of acceptable aspects, four themes were identified: the interventions: 1) involve family caregivers and proactively prepare them for discharge, 2) provide clear, written, and detailed guidance, 3) place the onus on healthcare providers to initiate communication, and 4) ensure post-discharge follow-up. In terms of unacceptable aspects, one theme was identified: the physical activity intervention would be challenging to implement. DISCUSSION: The findings support implementing the four interventions in practice throughout the hospital-to-home transition. Healthcare providers should assess family caregivers' comfort in participating in the physical activity intervention and tailor their role accordingly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→