Improving Quality of Work life for Care Providers by Fostering the Emotional well-being of Persons with Dementia: A Cluster-randomized Trial of a Nursing Intervention in German long-term Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the feasibility of a nursing intervention (DEMIAN) in routine care and its effects on care providers' job satisfaction, motivation, and work strain. This cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 20 German long-term care facilities. We randomly assigned 20 facilities to an intervention group (84 care providers, 42 residents with dementia) or a control group (96 care providers, 42 residents with dementia). Intervention group providers received two training days on the intervention; 68 providers attended both training days. Sixty two providers completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Trained providers created individualized mini-intervention plans for participating residents. Control group residents received 'usual care'. Intervention group providers stated that the intervention was feasible and helped them improve emotional well-being of residents with dementia. We found significantly decreased time pressure and decreased job dissatisfaction for intervention group providers. DEMIAN is an effective and pragmatic contribution to implementing person-centred care in long-term care, with positive effects on providers' working conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".