AQUEDUCT Intervention for Crisis Team Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia: Protocol for a Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specialist community teams often support people with dementia who experience crisis. These teams may vary in composition and models of practice, which presents challenges when evaluating their effectiveness. A best practice model for dementia crisis services could be used by teams to improve the quality and effectiveness of the care they deliver. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial comparing the AQUEDUCT (Achieving Quality and Effectiveness in Dementia Using Crisis Teams) Resource Kit intervention to treatment as usual. METHODS: This is a multisite feasibility study in preparation for a future randomized controlled trial. Up to 54 people with dementia (and their carers) and 40 practitioners will be recruited from 4 geographically widespread teams managing crisis in dementia. Quantitative outcomes will be recorded at baseline and at discharge. This study will also involve a nested health economic substudy and qualitative research to examine participant experiences of the intervention and acceptability of research procedures. RESULTS: Ethical approval for this study was granted in July 2019. Participant recruitment began in September 2019, and as of September 2020, all data collection has been completed. Results of this study will establish the acceptability of the intervention, recruitment rates, and will assess the feasibility and appropriateness of the outcome measures in preparation for a large-scale randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of crisis intervention teams for older people with dementia. This is the first study to test the feasibility of an evidence-based best practice model for teams managing crisis in dementia. The results of this study will assist in the planning and delivery of a large-scale randomized controlled trial. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18971.
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 | 0.066 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.019 |
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".