Quality of Life in Caregivers of Patients with Brain Tumours: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective . (1) Examine QoL of caregivers of patients with brain tumours compared to population norms and other cancer caregiver groups, (2) appraise the content of quantitative QoL outcome measures utilised, and (3) assess to what extent QoL measures used in research align with caregivers’ priorities. Methods . Systematic literature search of studies including caregivers of brain tumour patients using self‐completed assessments of QoL. Extracted data from included studies included quantitative QoL outcome data, QoL outcome measures utilised, and the included QoL domains. The impact of brain tumour patient caregiving was assessed by summarising included data comparing brain tumour caregivers to other cancer caregivers and normative population data. QoL measures utilised by the studies and their domains were extracted, coded, and analysed by themes. The rates of investigation by theme were then compared to existing data on caregiver‐own preference in relation to QoL. Results . 49 studies, including 57 outcome measures, incorporating a combined 124 QoL domains. Brain tumour caregivers reported lower QoL outcomes than population norms but similar to other cancer caregiver groups. Thematic analysis of QoL domains generated 7 themes: caregiving burden and adaptation, existential and self, family and social support, finances, information needs, physical symptoms and functioning, and psychological symptoms and wellbeing. The most investigated themes were physical and psychological symptoms, the most important for caregivers themselves were family and social support. Conclusions . Caregiving for brain tumour patients is shown to negatively affect QoL, particularly mental health, burden, and social life. Existing QoL research in caregivers of brain tumour patients predominantly utilises generic QoL measures designed for use in patients and draws a medicalised view of QoL priorities. The few studies using caregiver‐specific QoL measures demonstrated closer alignment to caregiver preferences such as family and social support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".