Lived Experiences of Caregiving to Patients Who Utilize Emergency Department Services Due to Mental Health and Substance Use Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with mental health and addiction (MHA) conditions who visit the emergency department (ED) often present severe symptoms, and require additional services and care. Up to 50-70% of patients with MHA conditions live with their family which provides patients essential assistance in acute MHA crisis, and routine tasks including ADL’s, medical appointments, symptom management, and financial support. Ongoing time and resource demands of caregiving have a deleterious effect on caregivers’ well-being including mental and physical health. However, there is limited research exploring the experiences of caregivers focusing on their mental and physical health. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the lived experiences of caregiving to patients who visit the ED frequently due to MHA conditions. Methods: Caregivers were recruited through a local MHA services’ caregiver peer support group. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. In-depth individual semi-structured interviews were utilized to collect data on caregiving experiences. Data was analyzed by using a thematic analysis approach. Results: Seven family caregivers participated in this study, and the narratives elucidated their lived experiences including the challenges they face (e.g., navigating healthcare systems, lack of support), the emotional toll they experience (e.g., psychological stress, and burden), and how they make sense of their experiences (e.g., understanding the meaning they created from their caregiving experiences). Implications and lessons learned: Our study findings revealed that the caregiving role itself is a source of great stress and burden for caregivers, and often results in negative effects on physical and mental health. To improve wellbeing of caregivers, more support and resources are required to meet caregivers’ needs. Nurses can play a salient role in supporting caregivers by collaborating with other healthcare providers and communities to develop strategies and programs that address the challenges caregivers face when providing care to 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".