Dealing with daily challenges in dementia (deal-id study): process evaluation of the experience sampling method intervention ‘Partner in Sight’ for spousal caregivers of people with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study describes the process evaluation of the experience sampling method (ESM) intervention 'Partner in Sight' for spousal caregivers of people with dementia. The aim was to determine internal and external validity of the intervention and provide information for future implementation in clinical practice. METHOD: Qualitative and quantitative data on sampling quality (recruitment and randomization, reach) and intervention quality (relevance and feasibility, adherence to protocol) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. RESULTS: The participation rate included 31.4%. Due to recruitment difficulties and time constraints the original goal to include 90 caregivers was not met. The intervention was largely performed according to protocol and well received by the participants. Overall, the ESM-derived feedback was considered supportive and increased participants' awareness of their feelings and behavior. A large variance was found in the extent to which caregivers applied the feedback into their daily lives. The importance of the personal coach to provide face-to-face feedback and stimulate caregivers to implement new insights into their daily lives was emphasized. Suggestions for improvement were to reduce the time intensity of the program, to better tailor the program content to one's personal situation, and to improve the ESM device. CONCLUSION: Although recruitment barriers were encountered, results indicate that future implementation of the ESM intervention 'Partner in Sight' is likely to be feasible in regular health care. If the intervention turns out to be (cost-) effective, a fine-tuned version of the program could be a valuable addition to the current health care system.
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 | 0.049 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".