Experiences of an Online Palliative Rehabilitation Programme for Spousal Caregivers of People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Cognitive and/or Behavioural Impairments: A Qualitative Interpretive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to understand how spousal caregivers of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cognitive and/or behavioural impairments felt about the EMBRACE intervention. Materials and methods: A qualitative interpretive study, using individual semi-structured interviews pre- and post-participation in a palliative rehabilitation blended learning programme, was applied. In total, 13 spousal caregivers were interviewed pre-intervention and 10 of them post-intervention. Results: . Information provided in targeted videos and sharing experiences with peers in virtual group meetings were beneficial to comprehend, manage and find meaning in everyday challenges related to being a caregiver. Conclusion: The EMBRACE intervention helped spousal caregivers cope with everyday needs and challenges related to being a caregiver. EMBRACE was found to support and strengthen the participants in gaining more control in everyday life, creating a sense of coherence. Through targeted videos and discussions with peers, the participants felt prepared for the illness trajectory of their relative. Peer support promoted resilient functioning and reduced their feelings of loneliness. Clinical trial registration: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the name: A Complex Intervention Study on a Palliative Rehabilitation Blended Learning Programme to Support Relatives and Health Care Providers of People with ALS and Cognitive Impairments in Coping with Challenges. ID no. NCT04638608. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04638608&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".