MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408729842 · doi:10.1177/084456211304500404

A Trial of Dementia Caregiver Telephone Support

2013· article· en· W2408729842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Martindale‐Adams, Linda O. Nichols, Robert Burns, Marshall J. Graney, Jeffrey Zuber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialCoping (psychology)Depression (economics)GerontologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine if telephone support groups for dementia caregivers have an effect on bother with patient behaviours, burden, depression, and general well-being. The randomized controlled trial compared telephone support groups (15 groups of 5 or 6 caregivers) with control groups (print materials). Groups met 14 times over 1 year. The 1-hour sessions included content on education, coping skills, and support. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. The sample comprised 154 caregivers, 77 per arm, providing care to veterans with dementia or a veteran caregiver. Bother was found to differ significantly at baseline. There were no significant treatment effect differences between study arms. Participants anecdotally reported improvement. It was concluded that telephone support groups are an efficient way to interact with caregivers. Further research should test different models of care. Interventions that are targeted to specific needs or occur frequently may provide better support for caregivers of individuals with a worsening condition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207