The process of a group intervention for caregivers of demented persons living at home: Conceptual framework, components, and characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most earlier group interventions for caregivers of demented persons lacked a theoretical basis to guide the intervention process and focused on providing information and practical advice and encouraging the expression of feelings. This article presents the process of a group intervention with emphasis on its conceptual framework, components and characteristics. As caregivers are exposed to numerous daily stressful demands, the intervention's conceptual framework was derived from Lazarus and Folkman's transactional theory of stress and coping and Folkman's Coping Effectiveness Training Program. The central aim of the intervention was to improve the ability of caregivers to cope with the stressful demands at the core of caring for a demented person, rather than to focus on information and the task-oriented aspects of caring. The two components of the intervention deal with the cognitive appraisal of stressors and coping strategies, with a view to determining which strategies are most appropriate on the basis of the changeability of stressors. Three coping strategies were proposed: problem solving (problem-focused coping to deal with changeable stressors), reframing (emotion-focused coping to manage the emotional response to unchangeable stressors), and seeking social support (problem- or emotion-focused coping). The most salient characteristics of this group intervention were its intensity (15 meetings) and its focus on the caregivers' daily reality, which provided concrete reference points for the discussion of conceptual notions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".