A Japanese booklet about palliative care for advanced dementia in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A Canadian guide for nursing home staff on comfort care for dementia has been translated and adapted for use in Japan. The present study piloted educational intervention for nursing home staff using the Japanese comfort care booklet. METHOD: Some 61 nursing home staff (nurses and other care workers) completed a session that included pre-assessment, a 30-minute seminar using the comfort care booklet, post-assessment, and a one-hour debriefing meeting. A Japanese version of the questionnaire on palliative care for advanced dementia (qPAD) scale was used to assess knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care for advanced dementia. RESULTS: The participants demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge (mean score, 14.3 to 15.1/23, t (60) = 2.35, p=0.011) and attitudes (43.8 to 45.2/60, t (60) = 2.51, p = 0.015) toward palliative care for advanced dementia from pre-assessment to post-assessment. CONCLUSION: The educational intervention using the Japanese comfort care booklet may have improved nursing home staff's perspectives on palliative care for advanced dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".