“It’s a stressful, trying time for the caretaker”: an interpretive description qualitative study of postoperative transitions in care for older adults with frailty from the perspectives of informal caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with frailty have surgery at a high rate. Informal caregivers often support the postoperative transition in care. Despite the growing need for family and caregiver support for this population, little is known about the experience of providing informal care to older adults with frailty during the postoperative transition in care. The purpose of this study was to explore what is important during a postoperative transition in care for older adults with frailty from the perspective of informal caregivers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using an interpretive description methodology. Seven informal caregivers to older adults [aged ≥ 65 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥ 4) who had an inpatient elective surgery] participated in a telephone-based, semi-structured interview. Audio files were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were constructed: (1) being informed about what to expect after surgery; (2) accessible communication with care providers; (3) homecare resources are needed for the patient; and (4) a support network for the caregivers. Theme 4 included two sub-themes: (a) respite and emotional support and (b) occupational support. CONCLUSIONS: Transitions in care present challenges for informal caregivers of older adults with frailty, who play an important role in successful transitions. Future postoperative transitional care programs should consider making targeted information, accessible communication, and support networks available for caregivers as part of facilitating successful transitions in care.
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 | 0.028 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".