Development of a bereavement intervention for spousal carers of persons with dementia: The <i>Reclaiming Yourself</i> tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dearth of supportive interventions exists for bereaved spouses who were carers of persons with dementia, despite an identified need for such supports. The purpose of the current work was to develop and evaluate a supportive writing intervention for this population that was informed by the experiences of spouses who were bereaved and was specific to the unique context of dementia. Following development of the Reclaiming Yourself tool, a mixed methods design was utilized to assess its effects on grief, depressive symptoms, and balance between restoration and loss. Fifteen participants residing in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were provided the writing intervention and visited three times approximately four weeks apart, completing quantitative measures (for grief, depressive symptoms, and finding balance) at each visit and an exit interview about the intervention. Paired-sample t-tests illustrated trivial effect sizes and no significant differences in grief, depressive symptoms, or balance orientation, with overall means suggesting low levels of depressive symptoms and grief, and a slight orientation towards restoration. Thematic analysis illustrated benefits from the tool, with participants reporting that it provided a structured approach to grief, was a catalyst for emotional expression, and facilitated reflection. The format and timing of the intervention was not ideal for all participants. Although Reclaiming Yourself did not affect quantitatively measured grief, depressive symptoms, and balance, carers accrued benefits from the tool that align with beneficial processes observed in other writing interventions. While more research on the effectiveness of this tool is needed, such interventions are valuable to support the well-being of carers who are bereaved following the death of a spouse with dementia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".