The Impact of Aphasia Camp Participation on Quality of Life: A Primary Progressive Aphasia Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and their caregivers are at risk for decreased quality of life (QoL) due to their progressive condition. Aphasia camps are an intervention that can improve QoL, yet individuals with PPA are underrepresented at aphasia camps relative to those with poststroke aphasia. The purpose of this exploratory case study was to examine the effect of participation in aphasia camp on the QoL of a couple impacted by PPA. The Living with Aphasia: Framework for Outcome Measurement (A-FROM) was used to guide a semistructured interview with an individual with PPA and her spouse, both of whom had attended the Alberta Aphasia Camp for 4 years. Conventional content analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyze results. Concepts that emerged from the interview were organized into pre-camp, during, and post-camp categories. Aspects of camp that had an effect on post-camp QoL for this couple with PPA included expanding social connections and introduction to new activities. Personal characteristics exhibited by the couple had an impact on their experience of aphasia camp and how they incorporated their experiences into their everyday lives post-camp. Aphasia camps are a participation-based service approach that can benefit people with aphasia regardless of etiology. A consideration of personal factors of potential campers with PPA, and the provision of PPA-specific resources, is recommended for programs such as aphasia camps that incorporate participants with mixed etiologies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".