Evaluation of a problem-solving (PS) techniques-based intervention for informal carers of patients with dementia receiving in-home care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of care provided by informal carers in Canada is estimated at $26 billion annually (Hollander et al., 2009). However, carers' needs are often overlooked, limiting their capacity to provide care. Problem-solving therapy (PST), a structured approach to problem solving (PS) and a core principle of the Reitman Centre CARERS Program, has been shown to alleviate emotional distress and improve carers' competence (Chiu et al., 2013). This study evaluated the effectiveness of problem-solving techniques-based intervention based on adapted PST methods, in enhancing carers' physical and emotional capacity to care for relatives with dementia living in the community. METHODS: 56 carers were equally allocated to a problem-solving techniques-based intervention group or a control arm. Carers in the intervention group received three 1 hr visits by a care coordinator (CC) who had been given advanced training in PS techniques-based intervention. Coping, mastery, competence, burden, and perceived stress of the carers were evaluated at baseline and post-intervention using standardized assessment tools. An intention-to-treat analysis utilizing repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the data. RESULTS: Post-intervention measures completion rate was 82% and 92% for the intervention and control groups, respectively. Carers in the intervention group showed significantly improved task-oriented coping, mastery, and competence and significantly reduced emotion-oriented coping, burden and stress (p < 0.01-0.001). Control carers showed no change. CONCLUSION: PS techniques, when learned and delivered by CCs as a tool to coach carers in their day-to-day caregiving, improves carers' caregiving competence, coping, burden, and perceived stress. This may reduce dependence on primary, psychiatric, and institutional care. Results provide evidence that establishing effective partnerships between inter-professional clinicians in academic clinical health science centers, and community agencies can extend the reach of the expertise of specialized health care institutions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".