Male caregivers: a scoping review of impacts, needs, challenges, and best practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although they play a crucial role in care trajectories and the quality of life of those they support, male caregivers (MCs) remain largely unrecognized, and the services available to assist them remain often insufficient or inadequate. This scoping review aims to identify their needs, challenges, and practices to foster an optimal support framework. Five scientific databases and the grey literature were reviewed for publications produced worldwide since 2000. Ninety-nine studies were included and the results showed that MCs encounter emotional, physical, social, economic, and legal challenges, necessitating flexible and tailored approaches. The findings also highlight the crucial role of family, community, and healthcare system support, as well as the importance of access to personalized support services and training programs that address their specific needs. This scoping review may contribute to the development and implementation of more inclusive and better-adapted interventions, services and programs that are better suited to the realities of MCs.
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 | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".