MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749853641 · doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0581-6

Study protocol: pragmatic randomized control trial of an internet-based intervention (My tools 4 care) for family carers

2017· article· en· W2749853641 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy Duggleby, Jenny Ploeg, Carrie McAiney, Kathryn Fisher, Jenny Swindle, Tracey Chambers, Sunita Ghosh, Shelley Peacock, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Jean Triscott, Allison Williams, Dorothy Forbes, Lori Pollard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)DementiaGerontologyFamily caregiversMental healthNursingDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Family carers of older persons with Alzheimer's' disease and related dementia (ADRD) and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) experience significant, complex, and distressing transitions such as changes to their environment, roles and relationships, physical health, and mental health. An online intervention (My Tools 4 Care) was developed for family carers of persons with ADRD and MCC living at home, with the aim of supporting these carers through transitions and increasing their self-efficacy, hope, and health related quality of life (HRQoL). This study will evaluate My Tools 4 Care (MT4C) by asking the following research questions: 1. Does use of MT4C result in a 3 month (immediately post intervention) and 6-month (3 months after intervention) increase in HRQoL, self-efficacy, and hope, in carers of persons with ADRD and MCC compared to an educational control group? 2. Does use of MT4C help carers of community-dwelling older adults with ADRD and MCC deal with significant changes they experience as carers? and 3. Are the effects/benefits of the MT4C intervention achieved at no additional cost compared to an educational control group? METHODS/DESIGN: Using a pragmatic mixed methods randomized controlled trial design, 180 family carers of community dwelling older persons (65 years of age and older) with ADRD and MCC will participate in the study. Data will be collected from the intervention and an educational control group at four time points: baseline, 1 month, 3 and 6 months. We expect to find that family carers using MT4C will show greater improvement in hope, self-efficacy and HRQoL, at no additional cost from a societal perspective, compared to those in the educational control group. General estimating equations will be used to determine differences between groups and over time. DISCUSSION: Data collection began in Ontario and Alberta Canada in June 2015 and is expected to be completed in June 2017. The results will inform policy and practice as MT4C can be easily revised for local contexts and is scalable in terms of posting on websites such as those hosted by the Alzheimer Society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02428387.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207