Protocol for a systematic review on interventions for caregivers of persons with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia: does early stage intervention improve caregiver well-being and ability to provide care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Caregivers of persons with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at risk of decreased well-being. While many interventions for caregivers exist, evidence is sparse regarding intervention timing and effectiveness at an early stage of cognitive decline. Our systematic review aims to answer the following questions: (1) Do interventions for caregivers of persons with early stage dementia or MCI affect their well-being and ability to provide care? (2) Are particular types of caregiver interventions most effective during early stage cognitive decline? (3) How does effectiveness differ when early and later interventions are directly compared? (4) Do effects of early stage caregiver intervention vary based on care recipient and caregiver characteristics (eg, sex, type of dementia)? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO and CINAHL, as well as grey literature databases, will be searched for English language studies using search terms related to caregiver interventions and dementia/MCI. Abstracts and full texts will be screened by two independent reviewers; included studies must assess the effects of an intervention for caregivers of persons with early stage dementia or MCI on caregiver well-being or ability to provide care. Intervention, study and participant characteristics will be extracted by two independent reviewers, along with outcome data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (for controlled trials with and without randomisation). Interventions will be grouped by type (eg, psychoeducational) and a narrative synthesis is planned due to expected heterogeneity, but a meta-analysis will be performed where possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach will be used to inform conclusions regarding the quality of evidence for each type of intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings from this review will be disseminated via conferences and peer-reviewed publication, and a summary will be provided to the Alzheimer Society. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018114960.
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 | 0.095 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.016 |
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".