Supporting Carers: Study Protocol of a Meta-Review of Psychosocial Interventions for Carers of People With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is a clear need for psychosocial interventions that promote the well-being of carers of patients with cancer, the corresponding evidence base is disparate, complex, and difficult for end users to navigate and interpret. Carers remain undersupported with a lack of dedicated, effective, evidence-based programs. We will conduct a meta-review to synthesize this evidence and determine the state of science in this field. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address the question, "what psychosocial interventions are available to promote the well-being of carers for people with cancer?" METHODS: A meta-review will synthesize the relevant reviews of psychosocial interventions that have been developed and evaluated with carers for people with cancer. A total of 4 electronic databases (PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be searched for reviews published between January 2013 and December 2023. A team-based approach will be taken for screening and assessment of the returned records against the eligibility criteria to determine inclusion. Included reviews will be critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Relevant data on study characteristics, carer and patient populations, intervention details, and psychosocial outcomes will be extracted, synthesized, and the findings will be presented in a narrative format. RESULTS: It is anticipated that the study will be completed by October 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring that carers have access to evidence-based programs that promote their well-being as they care for loved ones is critical. This meta-review will contribute to program development and translation efforts by providing a clear picture of the intervention evidence base of carers of patients with cancer and identifying notable strengths, weaknesses, and gaps across the literature. The findings are anticipated to offer future directions to advance research in the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023403219); https://tinyurl.com/4tnzv49s. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56403.
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 | 0.118 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.009 |
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".