P2–368: Escalation of resistiveness‐to‐care behaviors in people with dementia during hygienic care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevention of behavioural escalation is often implied as an intervention goal to manage behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. The main objective of this study is to verify the existence of an escalation pattern of resistiveness to care behaviors (RTC; Mahoney et al., 1999) during daily hygienic care in demented patients, and to describe it. Two hundred and forty daily hygienic care routines were video recorded and systematic observations of behaviours displayed by the eight study participants were performed. Videotapes were rated using a real-time coding program (The Observer 5.0; Noldus et al., 2000) specifying patient behaviours in accordance to a predefined coding scheme. Five types of resistiveness behaviours, situated on a continuum of gravity, were observed (verbal RTC, passive physical RTC, active physical RTC, aggressive verbal RTC and aggressive physical RTC), in addition to collaboration and absence of behaviour categories. Sequential analyses were used to analyze the temporal presentation of patient's behaviours in relation to each other and to confirm or infirm the existence of the escalation pattern. Each transition between resistiveness behaviours that was conceived as behavioural escalation is statistically and clinically significant (p < 0,0007, Yule's Q ranging from 0,31 to 0,94). Autotransitions, transitions between two occurences of the same behaviours, are also all significant (p < 0,0007, Yule's Q = 0,63–0,94).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".