MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2536547387 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.1584

P2‐373: Enhancing Support for Family Caregivers in the Community Setting Through Education on Intimacy, Sexuality, and Dementia for Health Care Professionals

2016· article· en· W2536547387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Marczyk, Kari Quinn-Humphrey

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsAlzheimer Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityDementiaContext (archaeology)Health carePsychologyConversationNursingMedicineDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimacy and sexuality in the context of dementia is an issue rarely discussed with families who care for someone with dementia in the community setting. Healthcare professionals, both at the managerial and front-line levels, identified the issue as an important one when supporting family caregivers, though found challenges with facilitating a conversation on the matter. The Alzheimer Society of Toronto recognized the importance of this identified gap by developing an interactive training session. Six one-time pilot sessions were held. The sessions were facilitated for healthcare professionals from various professions including nurses, occupational therapists, social workers, and personal support workers. The goals of sessions were comprised of exploring how intimacy and sexuality can be affected for families with the presence of dementia and discussing areas where healthcare professionals can incorporate the knowledge gained from the sessions into clinical practice. To diversify the knowledge base and expertize of the facilitators, the sessions were facilitated by a social worker with extensive experience in working with persons living with dementia and family caregivers and a public educator with extensive experience in working with health care professionals. Upon completion of the pilot sessions, healthcare professionals expressed an increase in knowledge on the intimacy, sexuality, and dementia, and made plans to incorporate the knowledge into practice. Two important conclusions were identified as a result of the sessions. The attendees identified experiencing several challenges with discussing the private matters of sexuality and intimacy with families in the public milieu of healthcare provision. The attendees also identified that due to many competing priorities that exist within dementia care provision, such as health concerns and caregiving stress, sexuality and intimacy was not often identified as a priority for discussion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.006

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→