Family caregiver burden among patients with schizophrenia: Concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This concept analysis aimed to clarify family caregiver burden in schizophrenia by identifying its defining attributes, antecedents, and consequences and by situating the issue within its clinical and social relevance. Methods: Using Whittemore and Knafl’s framework, we systematically reviewed 183 studies (1950–2017) from national and international databases. Findings: Caregiver burden is a dynamic, multidimensional construct centered on two core domains. subjective burden (perceived distress, emotional strain) and objective burden (care takes, time demands) whose interaction can lead to overload. Key antecedents included illness related disability, caregiver role demands, economic strain, family conflict, and sociocultural pressures; principal consequences were reduced perceived control and adverse emotional outcomes. Brief illustrative examples (e.g., increased caregiving hours leading to social isolation) demonstrate how these elements manifest in family settings. Conclusion: Family caregiver burden is a dynamic and multidimensional supports the design targeted interventions and the development of precise measurement tools; addressing identified antecedents may reduce caregiver overload and enhance both caregiver well-being and patient care outcomes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".