Caregivers described how an Alzheimer's disease respite programme gave them time to attend to their own needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perry J, Bontinen K. Evaluation of a weekend respite program for persons with Alzheimer Disease. Can J Nurs Res2001 Jun; 33 : 81 –95 [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] QUESTION: In caregivers for family members with Alzheimer's disease (AD), what are their experiences of a respite programme? Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. An overnight weekend respite programme in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 19 caregivers (11 caregivers were 28–80 years of age, median age 65 y) who used the respite service for family members who had AD. Participants were wives (n=8), daughters (n=3), sons (n=3), husbands (n=2), sisters (n=2), and 1 granddaughter. Participants were interviewed by telephone. Questions included “How did you spend the time while [your family member] was attending the programme?” and “How do you think [your family member] experienced the programme?” Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Content analysis was used to identify themes and ideas. Constant comparative analysis was used until consensus was reached on categories and themes. 3 categories were identified. (1) … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DHeaman%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D81%26rft.epage%253D86%26rft.atitle%253DConducting%2Bhealth%2Bresearch%2Bwith%2Bvulnerable%2Bwomen%253A%2Bissues%2Band%2Bstrategies.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11845625%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11845625&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F5%2F1%2F32.1.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".