MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037130484 · doi:10.1177/1471301211408124

A psycho-educational intervention focused on communication for caregivers of a family member in the early stage of Alzheimer’s disease: Results of an experimental study

2011· article· en· W2037130484 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Krystyna Klodnicka Kouri, Francine Ducharme, Francine Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Nurses Foundation
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)DementiaPsychologyFamily caregiversPerceptionDiseaseClinical psychologyFamily memberDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A psycho-educational intervention focused on communication was conceived for caregivers of family members in the early stage of Alzheimer’s disease (i.e., persons with dementia), and tested on five proximal outcome variables: caregiver knowledge, perceptions of communication difficulties and degree of perceived disturbance related to these difficulties, self-efficacy and skills. Guided by a theoretical framework that encompassed geragogy, the McGill model of nursing and self-efficacy theory, the intervention was evaluated via an experimental design with pre-post tests. Fifty family caregivers were randomly assigned to an experimental group (intervention program), or to a control group (information flier on communication and memory). Statistically significant effects were found on four dependent variables: caregiver knowledge, degree of disturbance related to communication difficulties, self-efficacy and skills. No significant effects were observed in regard to the perceived presence of communication difficulties. This communication program serves as a useful tool to prepare caregivers for their new role.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207