Knowledge evaluation instruments for dementia caregiver education programs: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase in our older adult population, there is a need for dementia training for informal and formal dementia caregivers. The objective of this scoping study is to assess dementia knowledge instruments utilized in educational programs and interventions intended for formal and informal dementia caregivers. Scoping review methodology was used to search PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science with tailored database search terms. The search yielded 8101 results, with 35 studies meeting inclusion. Studies were conducted in eight countries, had varying study designs (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] = 9, non-RCTs = 6, one-group study design = 20) and utilized previously published (19) and author developed (16) instruments. Furthermore, the studies were internationally diverse, conducted in the United States (n = 18), Australia (n = 7), UK (n = 3), China (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), Taiwan (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1) and multi-country (n = 1). Only two studies focused on minority populations. While author-developed instruments may be more relevant and timesaving, studies should strive to validate instruments or use previously published instruments to help standardize findings across studies and understand better the effects of educational programs on caregiver knowledge. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 397-413.
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 | 0.039 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".