Caregiving and Adults With Intellectual Disabilities Affected by Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Authors conducted a systematic review of the available Dutch, English, and German language literature for the period 1997–2008 on the current knowledge on social‐psychological and pharmacological caregiving with respect to older adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) affected by dementia. Authors note that caregiving occurs on a personal level between the person and their carer and organizational and interorganizational supports have an impact on the quality of care provided. However, the lack of robust evidence to meet the needs of adults with ID affected by dementia means that service organizations often have to extrapolate from the evidence base of dementia care practices in the general population. The review showed that concerns over staff burden, behavioral interventions, and staff training, and applications of models of care were emerging, but were not systematically studied. Authors noted that pharmacological agents and nonpharmacological, psychosocial techniques were being used to assist carers manage behavior, but the evidence base of both nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions that can help people with ID and dementia and their carers is insufficient because of the absence of systematic and robust studies. The authors note a need for an international research agenda that begins to address gaps in knowledge. With more adults projected to be affected by dementia, a robust evidence‐based body of literature on dementia care in people with ID can help with planning for and providing quality dementia‐capable services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".