MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082478746 · doi:10.1080/13607863.2014.922527

Maintaining the potential of a psycho-educational program: efficacy of a booster session after an intervention offered family caregivers at disclosure of a relative's dementia diagnosis

2014· article· en· W2082478746 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Francine Ducharme, Lise Lachance, Louise Lévesque, Steven H. Zarit, Marie‐Jeanne Kergoat

Bibliographic record

VenueAging & Mental Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsBooster (rocketry)Session (web analytics)DementiaPsychologyPreparednessIntervention (counseling)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Booster sessions as a means of maintaining the benefits of psycho-educational programs have received little attention in caregiving research. Caregivers were offered a booster session following participation in a program entitled Learning to Become a Family Caregiver (LBFC) intended to facilitate transition to the caregiver role after diagnostic disclosure of dementia in a relative. The 90-minute booster session served to review program content and afforded the opportunity to discuss and practice learned skills. This study sought to test the efficacy of the booster session in maintaining or recovering program effects at six months post-program. METHOD: Participants in the program were randomly assigned to a group that received the booster session (n = 31) or a group that did not (n = 29). A third control group was also formed, which continued to receive only the usual care provided in memory clinics. Eligible participants - French-speaking primary caregivers of a relative diagnosed with Alzheimer's in the past nine months - were recruited in memory clinics in Quebec (Canada). Participants were blindly assessed before randomization and six months after the booster session on outcomes associated with a healthy role transition. RESULTS: Prediction analyses revealed one significant positive effect of the booster session: emergence of preparedness to provide care. Moreover, with or without the booster session, the program continued to have a positive effect on psychological distress and contributed to the emergence of self-efficacy in dealing with caregiving situations. The booster session had no significant effect on knowledge of services, planning for future care needs, use of reframing as a coping strategy, perceived informal support, and family conflicts. CONCLUSION: The limited effect observed is discussed in terms of the booster session's content and intensity. Recommendations are made for designing future research on the effect of booster sessions, including the importance of including a placebo booster group.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging & Mental HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207