A scoping review of interventions tailored to the unique needs of care partners of persons with frontotemporal degeneration
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Care partners for family members with Frontotemporal Degeneration (FTD) face challenges that are complex and distinct from those faced by care partners persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). However, while there are numerous studies addressing the negative impact of providing care to persons with ADRD, less attention is paid to the needs of care partners of persons with FTD. Understanding how interventions can be tailored to address the behavioral symptoms of FTD can inform future approaches to meeting the needs of FTD care partners. Method A scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O’Malley’s systematic methodological framework. Articles were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. Peer‐reviewed, data‐based articles reporting results of interventions specifically designed to address the unique needs of care partners of persons with FTD were included in our sample. Reviews, scale development, and studies including ADRD care partners of were excluded. Result We identified 290 unique records and retained 42 for full text screening. One paper was added after manual search of reference lists, resulting in eight papers describing five unique interventions meeting inclusion criteria. All included studies had small sample sizes (total n ranged from 2‐30); three were randomized controlled trials. The studies were based in the US, Australia, Germany, Canada and The Netherlands, and the majority of participants were white, female spouses. Three interventions were group‐based, and two were one‐to‐one. Duration ranged from five weeks to six months. Lack of informal support, stigma, financial concerns, and coping with FTD‐associated behavioral symptoms such as apathy and disinhibition were especially salient topics for participants. Participants benefited from peer support, problem‐solving, and positive reframing activities. Statistically significant improvement in burden were reported in three of the eight papers. Conclusion All of the included papers suggested positive qualitative and quantitative results from the interventions, but the samples were small and homogenous. This review highlights an important gap in the science addressing the behavioral challenges FTD care partners face. These findings support the need for larger studies with more diverse populations to identify effective interventions to support families living with FTD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,090 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».