Video feedback: A novel application to enhance person‐centred dementia communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A discussion of the use of video feedback as an effective and feasible method to promote person-centred communication approaches within dementia care and long-term care. BACKGROUND: Effective strategies to integrate person-centred approaches into health care settings have attracted global attention and research in the past two decades. Video feedback has emerged as technique to enhance reflective learning and person-centred practice change in some care settings; however, it has not been tested in the context of person-centred dementia communication in long-term care. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: Articles dating from 1995 to 2018 retrieved via searches of the SCOPUS, CINAHL, MEDLINE and Cochrane Systematic Review databases. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Inclusion of video feedback in a person-centred dementia communication intervention for nurses and other health care providers may effectively fill a gap evident in the literature. This intervention can offer feedback of enhanced quality and enduring impact on behaviour change relative to traditional training. CONCLUSION: A critical review of empirical and theoretical evidence supports video feedback as a potential means to enhance person-centred communication within the context of dementia and long-term care. The promising benefits of video feedback present a novel research opportunity to pilot its use to enhance person-centred communication between nurses/health care providers and persons with dementia in long-term care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".