MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411437639 · doi:10.1177/10732748251339217

Family-Reported Outcomes Measures (FROMs) Screening Programs an Integral Part of Chronic Disease Management: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4411437639 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Control · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineCINAHLMEDLINEContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionFamily medicineGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caregivers experience physical, psychological, emotional, and practical challenges resulting from their roles and responsibilities. These challenges negatively impact caregivers' health and well-being. Screening for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is now considered a cornerstone of chronic disease management to improve symptom identification and management, quality of life, and survival. Similarly, screening for family-reported outcomes (FROs) could help promote caregivers' health and well-being. Though family-reported outcome measure (FROM) screening programs have emerged, the nature and extent of their development and evaluation in the context of chronic disease remains unknown. This scoping review aimed to identify the extent to which FROM screening programs among caregivers of adults with a chronic disease have been developed and evaluated. PRISMA-ScR and the methods recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute were followed. Four electronic databases (Ovid- Medline(R), Ovid- Classic + Embase, Ovid-APA PsycInfo 1967-onwards, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched iteratively to identify published literature describing FROM screening programs. Secondary search strategies and a search of grey literature were also undertaken. Data were extracted using a standardized table and analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. A total of 38 studies describing 17 unique FROM programs were evaluated. Studies were published between 1999-2024 and primarily from Australia (n = 11), the United States (n = 8), and the United Kingdom (n = 6). Caregivers included (n = 4312) were most commonly spouses of patients with cancer. Screening was primarily used to tailor interventions (rather than monitor symptoms) and focused on caregivers' needs (e.g., information, managing patient symptoms). Nurses typically responded to the screening. Most programs offered three types of follow-up: informational/educational resources, referrals to specialists or community groups, and/or real-time discussion and feedback with the interventionist. Although the FROM programs positively impacted proximal variables (e.g., preparedness), this did not translate to more distal outcomes (e.g., quality of life, anxiety). Future research on the timing of screening, caregiver engagement, and efficacious follow-up interventions is needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it