Validation of a Questionnaire for Family Physicians: Knowledge, Attitude, Practice on Dementia Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study objective was to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of family physicians regarding dementia care and dementia strategies in Canada. Using a multistage process with a panel of experts, we developed and distributed an 83-item questionnaire to 542 eligible family physicians in 42 interdisciplinary primary care teams participating in the Quebec Alzheimer Plan implementation. Altogether, 369 physicians (68%) returned questionnaires. Median item-specific non-response rate was 0.8 per cent (0.3%-8.1%). Exploratory factor analyses and scale correlation supported the questionnaire validity. The final questionnaire contained five factors and 31 items. The KAP questionnaire has proved to be a reliable instrument for assessing the KAP of family physicians regarding dementia care and dementia strategies. This questionnaire provides researchers, clinicians, managers, and decision-makers with a tool to assess an intervention, a program, or a policy change implemented in primary health care for patients 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 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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".