Invisible Pillars With Hidden Burdens: A Scoping Review on the Challenges of Informal Caregivers for Older Adults in Home-Based Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to show evidence from existing literature about the experiences and challenges managed by informal caregivers of older adults in home-based palliative care. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O’Malley's framework. Eight electronic databases, Academic Search Complete, AgeLine, APAPsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from the EBSCO platform were searched. After full text review, data were extracted and charted. Major themes were established following thematic content analysis. Results: A total of 3859 records were yielded through the electronic database search. After duplicate removal and screening of titles/abstracts and full-texts, a total of 11 studies were included. From these 11 studies, themes were identified: (1) exhaustion and health deterioration, (2) the strain of multifaceted obligations, (3) insufficient medical support and training for caregivers, (4) lack of respite care, and (5) financial strain in caregiving. There is a need for large-scale evaluations of interventions and informal caregivers should be engaged in this process. Conclusions: There is a need to recognize and support a wide array of informal caregivers socially and financially to help them obtain more services and resources. Policymakers need to make more accessible resources and the existing benefits more customized to the unique needs of the informal caregivers of home-based palliative patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".