MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793137171 · doi:10.22454/fammed.2018.221401

Education to Improve Dementia Care:

2018· article· en· W2793137171 on OpenAlex
Linda Lee, W. Wayne Weston, Loretta M. Hillier

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesHealth Sciences CentreCentre for Family MedicineWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaCognitionCognitive impairmentPsychologyClinical PracticeMedicineMEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychiatryFamily medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dementia often goes undiagnosed. A workshop was developed to provide primary care clinicians with a structured clinical reasoning approach to dementia diagnosis and brain map tool to differentiate type of dementia. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of this approach on self-perceived changes in knowledge, confidence, and ability to assess and manage memory problems and on self-reported application of learning to clinical practice. METHODS: Participants of 20 workshops (N=392) were invited to complete a reaction survey and of these, participants of 12 consecutive workshops (N=242) were invited to complete a 3-month follow-up survey to assess application of new learning to clinical practice and challenges experienced in doing so. RESULTS: In total, 355 reaction and 108 follow-up surveys were completed. Mean ratings of usefulness reflected that participants considered the clinical reasoning approach and brain map very useful to learning and knowledge transfer. At follow-up, the majority of respondents reported they were more confident (79%) and better able to assess (79%) persons with cognitive impairment and more confident (88%) and better able to manage (86%) persons with cognitive impairment. A number of practice changes and challenges were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to a growing literature on strategies to improve dementia care with effective continuing medical education. A structured clinical reasoning approach to cognitive impairment is effective in improving confidence and ability to assess and manage patients with cognitive impairment, although participants continue to experience challenges in managing this complex condition.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.379
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