Family physicians’ preferences for education to support family caregivers: a sequential mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One in four Canadians is a family caregiver. Family caregivers (carers, care-partners) are relatives or chosen family, friends, or neighbors who provide 75 to 90% of the care for people with physical or mental illness, disabilities, or frailty living in community homes and assist with 15 to 30% of the care in congregate care. However, a recent (2022) Statistics Canada population health study reports 44% of family caregivers are distressed. Family physicians and primary care teams are well-positioned to support family caregivers; yet, family caregiver needs assessments tend to be ad hoc and their most common needs remain unmet. Research recommends training healthcare professionals to enhance their knowledge and skills to support family caregivers. METHODS: The objective of this sequential mixed methods research, a survey followed by qualitative interviews, was to explore family physicians' desire and preferences for education about supporting family caregivers. 85 family physicians completed the online survey and eight took part in the interviews. Results from the survey and interviews were compared, contrasted, and interpreted together. RESULTS: Primary care physicians expressed a desire to be better equipped to assess and support FCGs' needs. Even though most physicians (61%) were very/confident about addressing family caregivers' needs, 72% were highly/interested in education to support family caregivers of their patients. Topics with the most interest were assessing family caregivers needs in an organized way, assisting family caregivers to access resources, and address system and practice barriers to support family caregivers. The overarching theme running through the interviews was physicians hope for education to help change the patient-focused culture to inclusion of FCGs. The three themes reflect physicians' conviction about including family caregivers in patient care: We need to take care of their caregivers, Practice and system barriers thwart including family caregivers, and Practical education might help. CONCLUSIONS: This study of family physicians' preferences for education to support family caregivers will inform the development of education about supporting family caregivers for family physicians and trainees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".