MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790228459 · doi:10.21037/aes.2018.ab100

AB100. Screening for vision and hearing loss in patients with dementia: recommendations from interviews with sensory experts

2018· article· en· W2790228459 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Wittich, Jonathan Jarry, Fiona Höbler, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Eye Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteAssociation for Canadian StudiesUniversity of TorontoCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesUniversity Health NetworkSanté MontérégieCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaAudiologySensory systemHearing lossMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dementia is a syndrome that affects a person’s ability to understand and express information. The higher prevalence of vision and/or hearing losses among persons with dementia in long-term care (LTC) facilities interferes with the ability of nurses to provide optimal care because communication is compromised. Therefore, the detection and screening for sensory impairment is of the utmost importance in LTC facilities; however, there is currently no agreement among nursing professionals on how to best identify such losses for the purpose of further referral, and the need for a validated screening measure suitable for nurses in LTC facilities is clear. The present project aims to close this gap by investigating the screening recommendations of vision- and hearing-care professionals working with clients affected by dementia. Methods: Eleven experts in audiology, optometry, deafblindness, and technology participated in individual semi-structured interviews on the topic of tools and strategies that can be used to screen individuals with dementia for sensory loss. Interview transcripts were coded by two evaluators using verbal agreement and consensus building. Results: Three main themes emerged from the interviews with experts: barriers, facilitators, and strategies. Barriers to sensory screening were often mentioned, particularly impaired communication and lack of staff cooperation. Facilitators consisted uniquely of people, such as family members, intervenors, and nurses. Strategies for sensory screening in this population consisted of improving communication through repetition and encouragements; considerations based on familiarity; and inferring an impairment on the basis of patient behaviour. Few of our interviewees were knowledgeable on the topic of screening apps. Conclusions: Our findings, to be integrated with a similar environmental scan conducted among LTC nurses, can inform the administration of sensory impairment screening tests among a population with dementia in order to optimize care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Eye ScienceSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207