Evaluating the Efficacy of a Web-Based Program (Diapason) for Informal Caregivers of Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers (CGs) of patients with Alzheimer's disease are at risk of suffering from psychological and physical weakening. Several psychoeducational interventions have been designed to prevent stress and burden of caregivers. In France, despite health authorities' recommendations, to our knowledge there is no rigorously assessed Web-based psychoeducational program to date. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the efficacy of a French Web-based psychoeducational program (called Diapason) with an unblinded randomized clinical trial. METHODS: In this protocol, 80 informal caregivers of patients followed at Broca Hospital are recruited offline and randomized in the experimental condition (EC) or the control condition (CC). The volunteers in EC have to visit a closed online user group at least once a week and validate one new session of this fully automated Web program, during 12 weeks. Each week a new thematic is added to the website. The participants in the CC receive usual care, and have access to the Diapason program after their participation (6 months). Face-to-face evaluations for both groups are planned every 3 months (M0-M3 and M6). The main objective of this program is to provide CGs with information on the disease process, how to prevent psychological strain (using anticipation and relaxation techniques), and offering a virtual space (forum) to discuss with other caregivers. The primary outcome of this study is the self-perceived stress, while self-efficacy, burden, depression, and self-perceived health status are defined as secondary outcomes. Other variables that might have an impact on the program efficacy are collected. RESULTS: This protocol was accepted for funding. The enrollment began in October 2011, and participants currently recruited will finish their evaluations in January 2014. The results are expected for June 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Findings might provide empirical evidence on: (1) the feasibility of an Internet-based program in the French context, (2) the effectiveness of a Web-based program for informal caregivers, and (3) the identification of caregivers who will benefit from this type of intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01430286; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01430286 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/6KxHaRspL).
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 | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.008 |
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".