MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799387460 · doi:10.2196/aging.8475

A Web-Based Intervention to Help Caregivers of Older Adults With Dementia and Multiple Chronic Conditions: Qualitative Study

2018· article· en· W2799387460 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jenny Ploeg, Carrie McAiney, Wendy Duggleby, Tracey Chambers, Annie Lam, Shelley Peacock, Kathryn Fisher, Dorothy Forbes, Sunita Ghosh, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Allison Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesWestern UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsAlzheimer SocietyOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster University
KeywordsDementiaFamily caregiversPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)GerontologyMental healthPsychologyCaregiver burdenMultiple Chronic ConditionsCaregiver stressMedicineDiseaseChronic diseasePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Caregivers (ie, family members and friends) play a vital role in the ongoing care and well-being of community-living older persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementia in combination with multiple chronic conditions. However, they often do so to the detriment of their own physical, mental, and emotional health. Caregivers often experience multiple challenges in their caregiving roles and responsibilities. Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. However, we know little about how Web-based supports help caregivers. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this paper were to describe (1) how the use of a self-administered, psychosocial, supportive, Web-based Transition Toolkit, My Tools 4 Care (MT4C), designed by atmist, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, helped caregivers of older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementia and multiple chronic conditions; (2) which features of MT4C caregivers found most and least beneficial; and (3) what changes would they would recommend making to MT4C. METHODS: This study was part of a larger multisite mixed-methods pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The qualitative portion of the study and the focus of this paper used a qualitative descriptive design. Data collectors conducted semistructured, open-ended, telephone interviews with study participants who were randomly allocated to use MT4C for 3 months. All interviews were audio-taped and ranged from 20 to 40 min. Interviews were conducted at 1 and 3 months following a baseline interview. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze collected data. RESULTS: Fifty-six caregivers from Alberta and Ontario, Canada, participated in either one or both of the follow-up interviews (89 interviews in total). Caregivers explained that using MT4C (1) encouraged reflection; (2) encouraged sharing of caregiving experiences; (3) provided a source of information and education; (4) provided affirmation; and for some participants (5) did not help. Caregivers also described features of MT4C that they found most and least beneficial and changes they would recommend making to MT4C. CONCLUSIONS: Study results indicate that a self-administered psychosocial supportive Web-based resource helps caregivers of community-dwelling older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementia and multiple chronic conditions with their complex caregiving roles and responsibilities. The use of MT4C also helped caregivers in identifying supports for caring, caring for self, and planning for future caregiving roles and responsibilities. Caregivers shared important recommendations for future development of Web-based supports.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207