Developing an Education Intervention for Staff Supporting Persons With an Intellectual Disability and Advanced Dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Generally, staff working in settings that provide care for adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) have not received specific education with respect to extended care for terminal illnesses or late‐stage dementia. Equally, staff working in specialist palliative care often are not familiar with the unique issues of supporting persons with intellectual disabilities affected by dementia. To understand care concerns with respect to supporting persons with ID and advanced dementia, and to develop, deliver, and evaluate an educational intervention with staff in ID settings and specialist palliative care services, 14 focus group interviews were conducted with staff across six ID services and one specialist palliative care provider in the greater Dublin (Ireland) area. Qualitative descriptive analysis resulted in the emergence of key themes and formed the development of an educational intervention. Pre‐ and posttest questionnaires assessed responses to a pilot delivery of the educational intervention. Formal feedback from staff indicated that the educational intervention was highly valued and addressed key training concerns. They agreed that the training supported “aging in place,” and the preparation for a “good death” including support for staff, peers, and family in their grief and bereavement. An educational intervention in the form of a trainer manual was produced to support cross‐service system in‐service training on issues of addressing advanced dementia in persons with ID.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it