Reported impact and protective factors of the care partner role during persistent critical illness: a content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with persistent critical illness experience prolonged multi-system morbidity, functional impairments, and chronic conditions. As a result, these patients have prolonged intensive care unit admissions. If discharged, they return home with long-term medical dependencies. Care partners take on a variety of physical, mental health, cognitive, and social roles to support the provision of care for these patients. There is limited evidence, however, of the impact of being a care partner for this patient population during hospitalization. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted to explore the impact care provision on care partners for patients experiencing persistent critical illness. Patients who have or have had persistent critical illness and care partners were recruited from two inpatient units in a single community academic hospital in Toronto, Canada to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed using a team-based inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Seven (43.8%) participants were patient survivors, and nine (56.3%) were care partners. Patients and care partners reported physical, socio-emotional, and social stress as impacts of care provision during persistent critical illness hospitalization. Care partners identified several protective strategies that they used to mitigate the impacts of care provision on them such as seeking external mental health support and boundary setting. Features of formalized and care partner programs were also identified and suggest that these programs can be protective of care partner values, mitigate feelings of helplessness and stress, and may improve relationships between the family members who are in the care partner role and the healthcare team. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified physical, socio-emotional, and social stress related impacts of care provision on care partners of patients with persistent critical illness during hospitalization. Additionally, this study identified protective factors initiated by care partners to mitigate the reported stresses of the role, as well as protective features of a care partner program. The results provide a better understanding supportive features of care partner programs that are specific to the experiences and needs of persistent critical illness and add to the growing body of evidence about how to provide equitable access to care during and post hospitalization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".