“You want them to be partners in therapy, but that's tricky when they’re not there”: A qualitative study exploring caregiver involvement across the continuum of care during the early COVID pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Widespread visitor restrictions were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic at acute and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Family caregivers were physically isolated from their loved ones, which challenged engagement in patient care and readiness for their role. Thus, we aimed to explore the involvement of family caregivers in COVID-19 patients as they journeyed across the care continuum during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We employed a qualitative descriptive approach. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted interviews with family caregivers, COVID-19 patients, and healthcare providers between August 2020 and February 2021. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a single hospital network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 27 participants were interviewed-12 healthcare providers, 10 patients, and 5 family caregivers. Four themes were identified: (a) Caregivers were shut out in acute COVID care, (b) Patient discharge from inpatient rehabilitation was turbulent for caregivers, (c) Caregivers were unprepared to support loved ones in the community, and (d) Patient discharge to home was heavily dependent on caregiver availability. CONCLUSIONS: Visitor restrictions prevent family caregivers from being physically present at patients' bedside, leading to complex and detrimental impacts such as caregivers feeling that they were not engaged in their loved one's care planning until they were discharged. In turn, discharge to the community was met with several challenges including caregivers feeling underprepared and unsupported to meet their loved one's unique care requirements. This was exacerbated by a lack of community-based resources due to ongoing pandemic restrictions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".