Formal caregivers’ perceptions of effective communication strategies while assisting residents with Alzheimer’s disease during activities of daily living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes caregivers' perceptions of communication strategies that are useful in their care practice when assisting individuals with moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) during the completion of activities of daily living (ADLs).A total of 10 formal caregivers participated in one-hour semi-structured focus group interviews (FGIs) conducted at two different long-term care (LTC) locations (n = 5 at each location).To identify the strategies caregivers perceived to be effective, content analysis was the primary method used to examine the FGI data.Particular attention was given to identifying the frequency and extensiveness in which caregivers made reference to communication strategies during the FGIs.Caregivers discussed a total of 33 strategies that they perceived to be useful when assisting residents with moderate and severe AD during the completion of ADLs.The majority of the communication strategies discussed (64%) were task-focused and the most frequently mentioned strategies included the use of negotiation and explaining one's actions to the resident.Greeting the resident was the most frequently discussed social strategy.In addition, two emergent themes containing a total of 12 strategies were identified, with the most frequently mentioned being establishing eye contact, familiarity with the resident, and postponing the task.Caregivers' perceived use of communication strategies indicates that person-centred dementia care is a central aspect to facilitating the completion of ADLs. AbrgCet article dcrit les perceptions qu'ont les soignants des stratgies de communication utiles dans leur pratique de soins lorsqu'ils assistent des personnes modrment et svrement atteintes de la maladie d' Alzheimer au cours des activits de vie quotidienne.Un total de dix soignants a particip des entrevues semi-structures de groupes de discussion d'une heure tenues deux centres de soins de longue dure (n=5 chaque endroit).Pour identifier les stratgies que les soignants percevaient comme efficaces, on a privilgi l'analyse de contenu pour examiner les donnes recueillies lors des entrevues.On a port une attention particulire l'identification de la frquence et de l'tendue des rfrences faites par les soignants aux stratgies de communication pendant les entrevues.Les soignants ont discut un total de 33 stratgies qu'ils percevaient utiles dans leurs interactions avec des rsidents modrment et svrement atteints de la maladie d' Alzheimer pendant le droulement d'activits de vie quotidienne.La majorit des stratgies de communication discutes (64 %) ont t soumises aux groupes de discussion et les plus frquemment mentionnes comprenaient l'utilisation de la ngociation et de l'explication des actions poses aux rsidents.La salutation adresse au rsident tait la stratgie sociale la plus frquemment discute.En plus, deux thmes mergents contenant un total de 12 stratgies ont t identifis ; les plus frquemment mentionnes sont l'tablissement d'un contact visuel, la familiarit avec le rsident ou la rsidente et la remise de la tche plus tard.L'utilisation des stratgies de communication par le soignant indique que les soins axs sur la personne dans les cas de dmence sont un aspect central menant au bon droulement des activits de vie quotidienne.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".