Communication between individuals with dementia and their caregivers during activities of daily living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much previous research has focused on linguistic factors that can lead to communication breakdown in caregiver-patient interactions. However, the impact of such linguistic deficits on communication may vary depending on the context, goals, and complexity of the interaction. As a result, the likelihood of experiencing communication problems is expected to differ across different activities. In the present study, family caregivers of persons with dementia were asked to discuss communication challenges that they have experienced in a range of daily activities in the home. Four focus groups, involving a total of 22 caregivers, were conducted in community settings. The main goal of the focus groups was to identify specific daily activities in the home in which caregivers most often experience communication problems. The content of the focus groups was audio recorded and transcribed, and then coded and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. The analyses focused on identifying trends across caregivers in which particular activities were noted as being prone to communication breakdown at different stages of the disease. Information about which activities are most communicatively challenging should assist caregivers in preparing for and adapting to these changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".