Efficacy of a Psychoeducative Group Program for Caregivers of Demented Persons Living at Home: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of a psychoeducative group program for informal caregivers of persons with dementia. METHODS: The study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Randomization was stratified according to sex and kinship. Participants randomized to the control group were referred to the traditional support groups. Participants in the study group had fifteen 2-hr weekly sessions focusing on stress appraisal and coping. Eligible participants (primary caregivers of community-dwelling persons with dementia) were blindly assessed before the randomization and after 16 weeks on the following measures: frequency and reactions to behavioral problems (primary outcome), burden, psychological distress, anxiety, perceived social support, and personal efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 158 participants were randomized to the study (n = 79) and control (n = 79) groups in 12 successive waves. Results show that study participants presented a 14% decrease in their reactions to the behavioral problems of the care-receivers as opposed to a 5% decrease in the control group ( p =.04). The frequency of behavior problems also decreased ( p =.06), as did the cross-product frequency/reaction ( p =.02). There was no significant effect on the secondary outcome variables. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies showing a significant effect of this type of support group program on the caregivers of participants 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it