The relation between the perceived role of family and the behavior of the person wiht dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between the perceived role of family and the behavior of the person with dementia in a sample of older adults. Two instruments were used in data collection: The Family Perceptions of Caregiving Role (FPCR) and the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). A total of 40 persons with dementia were included in the study. Each had a family respondent and a nurse respondent. The data analyses produced three major findings. First, it was revealed that there was no significant difference between agitation levels of persons with dementia who received more frequent family visits and those who did not. Second, the study revealed that family caregivers did not perceive a partnering relationship with staff. Finally, correlational analysis provided little evidence of a link between the family's perceived role in partnering and the behavior of the person with dementia, specifically in relation to agitation levels. Although no significant relation was established between the family's perceived role in partnering and the behavior of the person with dementia, there was high family and caregiver satisfaction. The clearest element of the family's perspective was the desire that staff members care about the individual with dementia as a person.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".