A Customized Intervention for Dementia Caregivers: A Quasi-Experimental Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to test the effects of a customized intervention on distress among caregivers of persons with dementia (PWD) using a quasi-experimental design. Method: Fifty-one spouse caregivers in the experimental group and 51 in the control group participated in the study. The effects of the intervention were examined by comparing caregivers’ responses with questionnaires at pre-intervention baseline (T0) and immediately after intervention (T1). Differences were quantified using repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: The analyses indicated a stabilizing effect of the intervention on caregivers’ perceptions of PWD’s daily functioning, self-esteem related to caregiving, quality of family support, and feeling of distress. Linear increases were observed regarding sense of preparedness and impact on daily routine, while no differences (interaction and linear effects) were observed for degree of self-efficacy, depression, impact on finances, or self-rated health. Conclusion: These findings show a preliminary efficacy of the intervention proposed in this study to prevent the exacerbation of caregivers’ distress.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".