Can We Help Care Providers Communicate More Effectively With Persons Having Dementia Living in Long-Term Care Homes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective communication between residents with dementia and care providers in long-term care homes (LTCHs) is essential to resident-centered care. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of a communication intervention on residents' quality of life (QOL) and care, as well as care providers' perceived knowledge, mood, and burden. METHOD: The intervention included (1) individualized communication plans, (2) a dementia care workshop, and (3) a care provider support system. Pre- and postintervention scores were compared to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A total of 12 residents and 20 care providers in an LTCH participated in the feasibility study. RESULTS: The rate of care providers' adherence to the communication plans was 91%. Postintervention, residents experienced a significant increase in overall QOL. Care providers had significant improvement in mood and perceived reduced burden. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the communication intervention demonstrates preliminary evidence of positive effects on residents' QOL and care providers' mood and burden.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".