Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an integrated discussion of the literature that addresses the effect of communication strategies on dementia care and caregiver burden. With the complexity and multiple symptoms associated with dementia, caregivers are exposed to increased burden which can affect their own health and wellbeing. Communication has been found to be a key to reducing burden and improving the quality of life for the person with dementia (PWD) and their caregiver. The literature review examines current and previous literature in order to acknowledge and synthesize the existing work done, and to identify areas for future research. The material was drawn from three databases; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed and PsycINFO. The literature search was restricted to relevant studies published in English and available through electronic sources between 2000 and 2017. The search yielded 22 studies. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies focused on the use of communication strategies within the context of caregiver burden in dementia care. The qualitative and quantitative studies addressed verbal and nonverbal techniques used to guide caregivers in their communication with PWD and to decrease caregiver burden. The results of the review illustrate the importance of using effective communication techniques for PWD. It shows that using specific strategies improves relationships between caregivers and PWD and effective communication techniques reduce caregiver burden. The importance and significance of these findings indicate the need for further research in the effects that communication have on dementia and caregiver burden.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".