ArticleScientific reports2025
Comprehensive care needs among informal cancer caregivers of patients with advanced cancer in palliative care: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informal caregivers (ICs) frequently face stressful events and have many caregiving responsibilities. Further, they have their basic requirements and continuously face comprehensive care needs (CCN) and unmet needs (UNs) in addition to meeting the needs of patients with cancer. This study aimed to describe the CCNs among the ICs of patients with advanced cancer in palliative care at the Apeksha Hospital, Maharagama, Sri Lanka. This cross-sectional study incorporated 422 ICs using a convenient sampling technique; an interviewer-administered questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. A 35-item validated Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool (CNAT-ICs) was used to assess the unmet CCNs (UCCNs) of seven domains. A five-point Likert scale was used (1 = no need to 5 = high need) for scoring (possible range 35-175). Higher scores indicated higher UNs. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Of the sample, 51.4% were female. The mean (± SD) age of the ICs was 43.13 (± 14.92) years. ICs' mean (± SD) total UCCNs was 92.54 ± 29.48. ICs had the most need in the healthcare staff/nurses' support needs and information domain (26.20 ± 10.44), followed by social and family support (17.07 ± 7.27), psychological (15.52 ± 7.99), hospital facilities/ service (13.22 ± 5.34), medical officers' support (9.46 ± 4.14), spiritual/Religious support (5.89 ± 2.80), and physical/practical (5.11 ± 2.29), respectively. Several variables of ICs, such as working status, financial and emotional strain, care levels, self-reported general health, and perceived social and family/friends support, were reported as significant factors. These ICs reported relatively lower overall UCCNs, while the study showed the UNs of ICs were high in the healthcare staff/nurses' support and information, and essential to consider associated caregiver and caregiving-related variables to minimize UCCNs. The results would help the health authorities understand the current status of UCCNs among ICs from different socio-economic backgrounds in Sri Lanka, recommending future support and involvement with family members in patient care, and especially providing information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.