Experiences of family caregivers in the home care to people with pressure injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To analyze the experience of family caregivers in the home care for people with pressure injuries (PI). Methods: Qualitative and descriptive research carried out with family members who received support from the home care service and who were the main informal caregivers of people with PI from stage 3 onwards. A sociodemographic questionnaire and semi-structured interview were applied with the following stimulus for narration: tell me about your experience in the home care to your family member with PI? Data were analyzed according to Bardin's content analysis. Results: Four categories emerged: 1) Performance of family members in PI care; 2) Support of the home care service to the family and patients with PI; 3) Overload of family caregivers; 4) Satisfaction in repaying the care received. Conclusion: This study showed the importance of support to home care service and the difficulties experienced by family members in caring for people with PI, including financial and physical overload; lack of preparation of the caregiver to deal with PI; family conflicts; and the centralization of care responsibility, predominantly performed by women. However, many see in care the opportunity to return the love received, despite all physical and mental fatigue.
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 | 0.000 | 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".