MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154531114 · doi:10.1177/1533317510387586

Dementia Caregivers’ Responses to 2 Internet-Based Intervention Programs

2011· article· en· W2154531114 on OpenAlexafffund
Elsa Marziali, Linda Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of OttawaBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsDementiaThe InternetNeuroticismPsychologyMental healthSocial supportCoping (psychology)Intervention (counseling)DistressClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryPersonalityPsychotherapistSocial psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact on dementia caregivers' experienced stress and health status of 2 Internet-based intervention programs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-one dementia caregivers were given the choice of being involved in either an Internet-based chat support group or an Internet-based video conferencing support group. Pre-post outcome measures focused on distress, health status, social support, and service utilization. RESULTS: In contrast to the Chat Group, the Video Group showed significantly greater improvement in mental health status. Also, for the Video Group, improvements in self-efficacy, neuroticism, and social support were associated with lower stress response to coping with the care recipient's cognitive impairment and decline in function. IMPLICATIONS: The results show that, of 2 Internet-based intervention programs for dementia caregivers, the video conferencing intervention program was more effective in improving mental health status and improvement in personal characteristics were associated with lower caregiver stress response.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations209
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207