Prevention of dehydration in independently living elderly people at risk: A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dehydration of elderly people living independently is a very important public health issue. This study compares two interventions to prevent dehydration in elderly people at risk: an educational intervention and an educational intervention in combination with a drink reminder device. METHODS: This is an experimental two-armed parallel study. A Public Health Service develops the interventions and will be partnering with a general practice and a university to evaluate the effects. Two groups - all people aged 80 years and older, and people of 65 years and older who have cardiovascular disease - receive a letter from the general practice in which they are asked whether they want to participate in the study and if so to return the form. People who want to participate and whose daily fluid intake is insufficient are randomized to receive either the educational intervention or the educational intervention in combination with a drink reminder device. The participants are asked to fill in a questionnaire before the intervention, 6 weeks after the start of the intervention and 6 months after the start (or after the end) of the intervention. Changes between the two groups in fluid intake, knowledge, awareness of the risks of dehydration, and quality-of-life will be tested by Linear Mixed Model analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study will improve the knowledge of the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent dehydration in elderly people.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".