Traumatic stress in caregivers of adult patients with cancer: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this review was to critically review the research literature on traumatic stress in caregivers of adult cancer patients. Objectives included identifying the prevalence of significant traumatic stress symptoms, themes within the literature, and factors that are associated with traumatic stress in this population. A search was conducted of APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Two authors screened abstracts and full-texts and extracted data from included articles. A total of 1,150 unique titles and abstracts were identified, with 2f articles selected for full-text screening after title and abstract screening. There were 23 studies which were included in the review. Most studies reported a prevalence of PTSD of 15 % and above. The caregivers of newly diagnosed patients, those with recurrent cancer, and those on active treatment were the most distressed. Caregivers of patients who had completed treatment and those of longer-term survivors were less distressed. Significant associations were identified between caregiver traumatic stress and caregiver and patient psychological comorbidity, lower social support, higher caregiver burden, and patient's greater physical symptoms. This scoping review reveals that a substantial proportion of caregivers of adult patients with cancer experience traumatic stress. However, the majority of published studies are cross-sectional, with small sample sizes, and a lack of racial and gender diversity. There is an urgent need for further research, including on proactive and tailored interventions provided at the time of diagnosis or recurrence of the disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".