Physicians' and Nurses' Perceived Usefulness and Acceptability of a Family Information Booklet about Comfort Care in Advanced Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Families of patients with advanced dementia need to be informed about the course of the dementia and comfort care. Conditional for health care providers educating families is their knowledge and comfort in family education. METHODS: Perceived usefulness and acceptability of a Canadian family booklet explaining possible complications and comfort care in dementia was assessed by physicians and nurses caring for dementia patients in 14 nursing homes in Lombardy, Italy and 21 in the Netherlands. The practitioners received a questionnaire and translated versions adapted to local practice where needed. In 10 of 21 Dutch homes, physicians evaluated only the original Canadian version in English. A 15-item scale assessed the booklet's acceptability, for example, to inform families, or for educational purposes. Perceived usefulness referred to proportion of families of dementia patients for whom the booklet would be useful. A total of 168 evaluations were available for multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: The practitioners anticipated that the booklet would be useful for most families. Evaluation of the Dutch translation of the booklet was similar to the English version. Country (Netherlands) and profession (nurses) were independently associated with better acceptability. Usefulness was perceived as better by Italian respondents and nurses, but only in analyses unadjusted for the higher educational needs of these respondents. CONCLUSION: Overall, the concept of written information on comfort care was appreciated by practitioners of European countries differing in attitudes toward end-of-life care. A booklet may help practitioners, and in particular nurses, in providing comfort care for dementia patients and their families.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".