MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003963087 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.05.1752

Psychosocial telephone intervention for dementia caregivers: A randomized, controlled trial

2014· article· en· W2003963087 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Geoffrey Tremont, Jennifer Davis, George D. Papandonatos, Brian R. Ott, Richard H. Fortinsky, Pedro Gozalo, Mun Sang Yue, Kimberly Bryant, Christine Grover, Duane S. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialDementiaIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionMedicineFamily caregiversCaregiver burdenTelephone callPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying effective and accessible interventions for dementia caregivers is critical as dementia prevalence increases. OBJECTIVE: Examine the effects of a telephone-based intervention on caregiver well-being. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty distressed, family, dementia caregivers. INTERVENTION: Caregivers randomized to receive 16 telephone contacts over 6 months of either the Family Intervention: Telephone Tracking-Caregiver (FITT-C) or Telephone Support (TS). OUTCOME: Primary outcome variables were family caregivers' depressive symptoms, burden, and reactions to care recipients' behavior problems at 6 months. RESULTS: The FITT-C intervention resulted in significantly improved caregiver depressive symptoms (P = .003; 27% net improvement) and less severe reactions to care-recipient depressive behaviors (P = .009; 29% net improvement) compared with the control condition (TS). CONCLUSION: An entirely telephone-based intervention improves caregivers' depressive symptoms and reactions to behavior problems in the care recipient and is comparable with reported results of face-to-face interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations117
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207