DEMENTIA WORKFORCE EDUCATION: DOES IT CHANGE PRACTICE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health-care professionals are well positioned to recognize dementia in older adults. However, barriers to implementing quality care include their limited knowledge. Consequently educational programs have been designed to promote the knowledge and skills of the dementia workforce. The question that emerged is whether or not education changes health care practice? A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify approaches to providing dementia workforce education. The review was conducted using databases searched from 2000 to 2015. Two researchers screened each title and abstract for inclusion. Discrepancies between them were resolved by a third team member. A matrix was used for analysis including: type of research, participants, study design, type of education activity, outcome measures, and perceived effectiveness. The review included 144 studies, from an initial list of 3432, which met the inclusion criteria. Descriptive data was obtained from the matrix. In addition, thematic analysis was conducted to answer the original research question. Results identify that educational activities are primarily face to face, evaluated by participants’ satisfaction with the activity or changes in their knowledge levels, and usually conducted with facility staff. The exception to facility staff is physician education. Limited examination of the effect of the activity on practice have been conducted. In addition, there is no long term evaluation (> than 1 year) of the outcomes of the educational activity. There is limited evaluation of the effectiveness of educational activities on the quality of care provided to older adults living with dementia.
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 | 0.040 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".