Improving Quality of Life for Persons With Alzheimer’s Disease and Their Family Caregivers: Brief Occupational Therapy Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the extent to which adherence to occupational therapy recommendations would increase the quality of life of persons with Alzheimer's disease living in the community and decrease the burden felt by family members caring for them. METHOD: Using a pretest-posttest control group design, the Assessment of Instrumental Function (AIF) was administered to two groups of persons with Alzheimer's disease in their own homes (n= 40). Caregivers completed measures of their feelings of burden and the quality of life, including level of function of the persons with Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: A significant (MANCOVA) main effect was obtained for caregiver burden and three components of quality of life, positive affect, activity frequency and self-care status, by the treatment group, F(4, 31) = 7.34, p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized occupational therapy intervention based on the person-environment fit model appears effective for both caregivers and clients. This is especially important in light of a recent directive for more favorable reimbursement for occupational therapy services for persons with dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".