MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994323208 · doi:10.12968/bjcn.2005.10.6.18169

A longitudinal study of home care clients and their informal carers

2005· article· en· W1994323208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher Armstrong-Esther, Brad Hagen, Mark L. Sandilands, Robert J. Williams, Christine Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Community Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careMedicineStressorContext (archaeology)GerontologyDependency (UML)Longitudinal studyCognitionOlder peopleActivities of daily livingNursingClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the longitudinal study was to monitor physical and cognitive changes in a population of 330 older people being supported at home by health services. The participants were 75 years and older and classified as having moderate-to-high needs. A total of 210 primary informal carers were recruited to determine their specific needs and how they coped as dependency levels of their care-recipients changed. Data were collected using six different tools. Two questionnaires were mailed out to participating carers. Assessments of care recipients were carried out at three sampling points over the study period. The clients showed a significant increase in physical dependency and an overall increase in cognitive impairment over time. Only 32% of carers lived with care recipients, and changes in dependency, cognitive changes, lack of respite and performing activities of daily living were all major stressors for informal carers. The needs of informal carers are reported and discussed in the context of recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Community NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207