Systematic review of services providing information and/or advice to people with dementia and/or their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information is a key part of service provision to people with dementia and their carers, but there is no systematic review of the evidence. This study aimed to determine whether information services confer significant benefit for quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms and carer burden. METHOD: A systematic review of intervention studies in people with dementia was carried out, focussing predominantly on the provision of information and/or advice. RESULTS: Thirteen randomised controlled trials were identified. Two of the three studies measuring quality of life indicated benefit. Significant benefits were also evident for neuropsychiatric symptoms (points difference, -1.48; confidence interval, -2.11 to 0.86), but not carer burden. Most interventions included other key elements such as skills training, telephone support and direct help to navigate the medical and care system. CONCLUSION: There is some support for the value of information services, but studies are needed to determine the specific elements that are effective.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".