A289 EXPLORING THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF ADULT USING HOME ENTERAL NUTRITION AND THEIR CAREGIVERS: A QUALITATIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Home enteral nutrition allows individuals to receive food and water through a tube at home when they are unable to meet their needs by mouth. To date, systematic literature reviews to date have focused on specific insertion methods, coordinated community care models, and prophylactic vs. reactive use. Few qualitative systematic reviews exist and those that do have only explored the lived experiences of sub-populations of adults using home enteral nutrition, such as those with head and neck cancers. Given healthcare services often serve adult home enteral nutrition populations with various underlying conditions, a synthesis describing the lived experiences of all adult using home enteral nutrition and caregivers is needed. Purpose To conduct a meta-aggregation systematic review to evaluate lived experiences of home enteral nutrition in adult users and their caregivers. Method A systematic search of Medline, PsychINFO, EmBase and CINAHL was conducted September 2021. Only studies with a full-text and published in English were included. Study quality was assessed using the Johanna Briggs Institute meta-aggregation methodology. Details of the study design, participants, and experiences were recorded, and themes across all studies collatedCollated themes were reviewed with a team of healthcare providers, home enteral nutrition users and a caregiver to ensure trustworthiness. Result(s) A total of 38 studies representing 702 participants were included. Using the meta-aggregative approach, three different synthesized findings were identified: (1) positive experiences, (2) negative experiences, and (3) facilitators and coping mechanisms. While, overall, the findings reported more negative experiences than positive experiences, users and caregivers who had developed coping mechanisms or had access to supportive services tended to share more positive experiences with home enteral nutrition. In contrast, those with few to no supports or coping mechanisms reported greater dissatisfaction and negative experiences. Image Conclusion(s) Home enteral nutrition impacts the lived experience of users and their caregivers. While more negative than positive experiences were reported by adults and their caregivers using home enteral nutrition, overall, they still view home enteral nutrition as a positive intervention if they are adequate supported or developed adequate coping mechanisms. It is imperative that healthcare providers working with adults using home enteral nutrition explore and understand their patients’ and caregivers’ needs, in order to ensure community programs are designed to provide the necessary supports to maximize users experiences. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared PANCREATIC DISORDERS
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 | 0.041 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".