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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".