Effects of adult day care services on disability in older persons: Evaluation of a designed service package in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of a rehabilitation service package designed by the State Welfare Organization of Iran for adult day care centres on the disability of older clients. METHODS: A case-control study, with 46 older participants in the case group and 46 participants, matched for level of disability, in a control group. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2 was used to collect data at 4 time-points: baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months later. Data were analysed using repeated-measures analysis of variation. RESULTS: The rehabilitation service package had significant effects on the disability scores of older users of day care services. The disability scores significantly changed within the subjects (p = 0.010) and between the 2 groups (p < 0.001). Within-subjects effects in all 6 domains ("understanding and communication" (p = 0.002), "getting around" (p = 0.046), "self-care" (p < 0.001), "getting along with people" (p < 0.001), "life activity" (p < 0.001) and "participation" (p < 0.001)) and between-subjects effects, in all except the "self-care" domain, showed significant differences during the 6-month study period (p = 0.003, p < 0.001, p <0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The adult day care service package may have a positive role in decreasing measures of disability among older persons over a 6-month period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".