MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986909844 · doi:10.1080/03601277.2019.1687149

Digital tools for delivery of dementia education for health-care providers: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2986909844 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHealth careIntervention (counseling)Flexibility (engineering)Scale (ratio)MedicineNursingMedical educationSystematic reviewPsychologyQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuing education on dementia for health-care providers has been shown to have positive effects on diagnostic confidence, knowledge, and care management. Technological approaches to educational delivery have been found to have comparable effects in terms of quality and efficacy. The purpose of the systematic review was to compose and present an evidence base for technology-delivered dementia education for health-care providers. The review used PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane methods focusing on studies with a pre- and post-intervention evaluation. Technology-based delivery of dementia education was broadly defined as any technology-based medium delivered in real time or asynchronously. Ten studies were identified and analyzed using content analysis. The review revealed positive outcomes post-intervention, for dementia knowledge, readiness to change, receptiveness to training, communication skills, and self-efficacy. Studies were rated as medium to high quality on a scale for measurement of published data in research, and there was generally an unknown risk of bias due to a lack of a control group in most studies (N = 7). The findings revealed benefits of digitally-based, asynchronous continuing education for health-care providers, which allow schedule flexibility and the ability to deliver remotely. Findings also revealed benefits of presentations using a variety of interactive educational materials via videos, voice recordings, textual medium and online discussion groups. Suggestions for intervention improvements include tailoring training for the specific needs and knowledge levels of health-care practitioners and using validated scales to measure outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.351 · 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