Impact of brief education on healthy seniors’ attitudes and healthcare choices about Alzheimer's disease and associated symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjective:The primary objective of this study was to determine whether a brief education session about Alzheimer's disease (AD) stages and associated behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) changes healthy seniors' treatment choices. A secondary objective was to determine whether pharmacotherapy to reduce BPSD would be preferred over other potentially more restrictive interventions. METHODS: Participants (n = 32; 8 men; aged > 64years; no self-reported dementia diagnosis) were assigned to one of ten group sessions during which they received information about AD and BPSD. Our a-priori hypotheses were: (1) education about AD stages significantly changes care preferences in moderate and severe stages, i.e. less active treatment options (no CPR/hospitalization) are chosen as the disease progresses; and (2) most participants prefer pharmacotherapy over restraints and seclusion to manage BPSD. The main outcome measure was a change in the interventions chosen including CPR and hospitalization. Participants completed three questionnaires and two decisional grids before and after the information session. Qualitative data were derived from discussions during the session. RESULTS: Participants expressed a wide range of attitudes about AD, BPSD, and their management. Those who are born in Canada, had a proxy, and a university education, each have around half of the odds of receiving treatment compared to those in the complementary group. (OR 0.47, 0.40, 0.43) Finally, not knowing someone with AD increases the odds of wanting a treatment by around six times (OR 6.4). Pharmacological measures were preferred over restraints. CONCLUSIONS: Education about dementia and advance directives should consider the person's educational background and experience with dementia. Discussing BPSD may impact a person's advance directives and preferences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".