The needs of family members caring for people living with mental illness: An integrated review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family members caring for people living with mental illness (PLWMI) are prone to grapple with caregiver burden. The caregivers often contend with a decline in their mental and physical well-being while executing their role. This exploration aimed to understand the needs of family caregivers of PLWMI. Aim: An integrative review was conducted to analyse the existing literature on the needs of family caregivers for PLWMI. Method: The review adhered to the instructions provided by Toronto and Remington, drawing upon the guidance of Whittemore and Knafl. The search used four electronic databases: PubMed, African journals, EBSCOhost and Scopus. After screening 3253 references, 18 studies (10 qualitative, 4 quantitative and 4 mixed methods) were included. Results: The review identified various needs of PLWMI caregivers, including the need for support (financial, social, peer and psychological), psychoeducation, community acceptance of family caregivers, and comprehensive family caregiver health assessments. Conclusion: This review recognises the significance of addressing the needs of the caregivers of PLWMI to alleviate the impact of caregiver role strain. Promoting nursing care that recognises the importance of caregiver-oriented practice in healthcare is essential. This can help address the needs of the caregivers, enhance their ability to cope with caregiver role strain and promote a better quality of life. Contribution: This review may inform policymakers to ensure the need for mental health practice to demonstrate knowledge in caring for caregivers of PLWMI. Furthermore, there is a need to integrate the management of PLWMI with that of the caregivers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".