MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801542529 · doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0783-6

Effects of a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention: a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2801542529 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAssistive technologyGerontologyNursingHuman–computer interactionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The principal aim of this study was to investigate whether a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention improved older care recipients' functional autonomy and decreased the perceived burden of their family caregivers compared to customary care. METHODS: The study was a single-blind, mixed-methods, randomized controlled trial with baseline data collection and follow-ups at 6-, 22-, and 58-weeks after baseline evaluation, which was prospectively registered ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640470. Registered 11/21/2011). Dyads comprising a care recipient and family caregiver were randomly assigned to either a caregiver-inclusive experimental group (N = 44) or a customary-care comparison group (N = 46). Eligible care recipients were aged ≥55 years and had one or more limitations with mobility or daily activities, and family caregivers provided at least four hours per week of assistance. Outcome measures were administered to both groups at baseline and at the three follow-up time points. The data collectors were blinded regarding participants' intervention group. The primary outcome measures were the Functional Autonomy Measurement System to assess care recipients' functional performance, and the Caregiver Assistive Technology Outcome Measure to assess caregivers' burden. Qualitative interviews examined participants' perceptions of the caregiver-inclusive and customary care interventions. RESULTS: The experimental intervention addressed significantly more dyad-identified problematic activities, but caregiver involvement was evident in both groups and outcomes were not significantly different over time. In both groups, care recipients' functional autonomy declined significantly (P < .01), and caregivers' activity-specific and overall burden decreased significantly (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Given the unintended congruence between the caregiver-inclusive and customary care interventions, the overall findings lend support for the provision of assistive technology to reduce 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.373 · 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