Undergraduate student-faculty collaborative research: A pilot study exploring care of a family member with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Caregivers for a family member with dementia experience subtle but long-term role changes that can be attenuated with successful coping strategies. The aim of this paper is to describe an effective research initiative managed by an undergraduate student-faculty collaborative team to assess the physical, emotional, and financial effects of caregiving and identify the impact of using an adult day service.Methods: Using the collaborative model, undergraduate nursing students led a mixed method, pilot study. Eight students, mentored by two faculty, held weekly meetings to manage the research design. After reviewing literature evidence, students developed the methodology and carried out the research. The convenience sample included 10 caregivers, each having a family member with dementia, who attended an adult day center in a rural/suburban city in the Midwest. The Kingston Caregiver Stress Scale (KCSS), a 10-item assessment of caregiver stress using a 5-point Likert scale, measured quantitative data. Two focus groups were conducted to collect qualitative data.Results: Participants included 6 males/4 females ranging in age from 46-72 (M = 65, SD = 10.58). Participants provided care an average of 4.2 years (SD = 6.0) and reported moderate levels of caregiving stress on the KCSS (M = 30.5, SD = 9.7). Four themes emerged from focus groups: (a) common emotional responses, (b) benefits of adult day services, (c) overwhelming impact on daily life, and (d) caregiver social isolation.Conclusions: Respite services promoted resilience through opportunities to manage self-care, to perform daily tasks, and to decrease emotional burden. Undergraduate nursing students effectively planned and implemented the research. As future practitioners, they may be more inclined to participate in best practice because of their experience on a student-faculty collaborative team.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".