Impact of Caring for Individuals With Heart Failure in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the functional impairments and complex care routines associated with heart failure (HF), patients often rely on the support of informal caregivers. Although the importance of caregivers' roles is widely recognized, the intensity and time required for care duties may negatively impact caregiver health and well-being, potentially precipitating their own need for care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to synthesize estimates of economic, clinical, burden, and health-related quality-of-life impact among caregivers of those with HF in the United States. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting estimates of caregiver impact. Abstract and full-text review as well as data extraction were performed according to established guidelines. Patient and caregiver characteristics were summarized, as well as estimates of impact of caring for those with HF. RESULTS: From 3680 abstracts, 44 studies reporting caregiver burden estimates were included. Mean caregiver age ranged from 41.4 to 71.4 years; caregivers were primarily female (range, 49%-100%) and the patient's spouse/partner (21%-100%). Time spent caregiving (6 studies) ranged from 2 to 52 h/wk, and depression was identified in up to 40% of caregivers (9 studies). Numerous instruments were used to measure burden, which consistently documented the high impact of caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the multifaceted impact of caregiving for patients with HF. Despite limited data, notable findings included the considerable burden to caregivers, variability in time spent caregiving, and frequent experience of depression among caregivers, possibly leading to increased healthcare resource use. Future research is needed to better characterize the caregiving impact in HF, including evaluating the drivers of burden.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".