Older Adult’s Acceptability Ratings of Treatments for Verbal Agitation in Persons With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Various interventions are available to manage verbal agitation (VA), but our understanding regarding their acceptability is limited. The purpose of this study is to compare the acceptability of 3 interventions from the point of view of elderly individuals: direct interaction (DI), differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors (DRI), and risperidone (RIS). METHODS: Participants (N = 69) evaluated the acceptability of each treatment according to the description of a fictional person who demonstrated aggressive or nonaggressive VA. RESULTS: There is an interaction between the type of intervention and the severity of VA. For nonaggressive VA, DI is the most acceptable intervention followed by DRI and RIS. For aggressive VA, DI and DRI are more acceptable than RIS, but there is not a significant difference between them. The acceptability of each intervention is not associated with the participants' characteristics. CONCLUSION: The results of this study highlight the acceptability of DI for managing VA.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".