Exploring the need for a new UK occupational therapy intervention for people with dementia and family carers: Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia (COTiD). A focus group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, Graff et al. found Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia (COTiD) demonstrated benefits to people with dementia and family carers. In this study, focus groups took place with people with dementia and family carers to explore how to make COTiD relevant to the UK context. METHOD: Six focus groups (three with people living with dementia (n = 18) and three with family carers (n = 21)) took place. Participants were asked for their impressions of the intervention, the extent to which it could meet their needs, and what modifications were needed. Audio-recordings of the groups were transcribed and analysed. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged covering 'loss and living with dementia', 'what helped us', and 'consistency and continuity'. People with dementia and family carers spoke about the impact of their diagnosis on them and their family and what strategies helped. Issues such as timing, follow-up, and the importance of an early intervention in preventing crises were highlighted. There was some concern over the length of the intervention and the disruption it might cause to current schedules. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants were optimistic about COTiD being used in the United Kingdom if it was to be introduced in a flexible and timely manner, incorporating the needs and existing strategies of the person with dementia. These outcomes have led to changes, such as incorporating more flexibility into COTiD, being made to the intervention prior to its implementation in the United Kingdom.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".