MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414300582 · doi:10.1080/09638237.2025.2558501

A qualitative study of the responsibilities and unmet needs of carers of persons with severe mental health challenges

2025· article· en· W4414300582 on OpenAlexaff
Anton Isaacs, Sharon Lawn, Caroline Lambert, A. Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mental Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsAbbotsford Veterinary Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMental healthWork (physics)Mentally illMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community care for persons with severe mental health challenges [SMHC] is typically provided by family members or relatives who are referred to as carers or caregivers. Identifying carer needs and suggestions for support is therefore critical to the enhancement of community care for such individuals. AIM: This study aimed to explore the responsibilities and unmet needs of carers of persons with SMHC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with carers of persons with severe mental health challenges. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fourteen carers were interviewed for the study. Twelve of them (86%) cared for their own adult children and 8 (57%) had been in the caring role for over 10 years. Five categories emerged from the data. They were: (1) The responsibility for caring falls on the carer, (2) Caring is exhausting work, (3) Carers are secondary consumers, (4) Carers have specific needs and (5) What carers want. CONCLUSION: Family carers have no reasonable alternative but to take over the responsibility of caring. Caring is exhausting work and carers struggle to cope with the challenges of caring to the point where they become mentally unwell themselves. Therefore, carers need to be treated as secondary consumers.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mental HealthSame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207