ALZHEIMER’S PLAN: IMPACT ON CLINICIANS’ KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES AND PRACTICE AND QUALITY OF DEMENTIA CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the Quebec government implemented an Alzheimer Plan (AP) to improve dementia patients’ management in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the impact of this intervention on the clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) and their association with the quality of dementia care. To this end, clinicians’ questionnaires were distributed between 2014 and 2015 to all clinicians in the 42 participating family medicine groups (FMGs) and two sets of retrospective patients’ charts were extracted from 13 of those FMGs: one pre-AP (2011–2013) and one post-AP (2014–2015). Overall, clinicians showed excellent clinical knowledge and competency, positive attitudes toward dementia, patient care, and the AP while the chart review revealed a significant increase of the quality of dementia care after the AP. The association between those variables will be further discussed. Decision-makers plan to use these results to refine the AP before province-wide dissemination.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".