Research‐based evaluation of a dementia support program: An analysis of input from 1164 participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Community support programs can improve quality of life for people living with dementia and their caregivers. Support programs act as a gateway to autonomy, empowering people living with dementia to be more involved with their own care and decreasing the burden of caregivers. Important to the successful implementation of such programs is an evaluation process that allows for ongoing improvements to meet the needs of users. The goals of this study were to conduct a research‐based program evaluation of the First Link® dementia support program provided by the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia (the Society) to identify strengths and areas for improvement to better serve B.C. and to develop a methodological blueprint for the evaluation of similar programs around the world. Method People living with dementia, caregivers, and healthcare providers (HCPs) who access and do not access the First Link® dementia support services were recruited from the Society, community venues, and through social media. Participants completed an online survey about their experience with the First Link® program. Result A total of 1164 participants completed the survey (889 caregiver, 198 HCPs, 77 people living with dementia). The overall experience of the program was positive for people living with dementia and caregivers (78%). Possible areas for improvement included promoting social interactions (70%), supporting physical health (72%), and reducing stress for persons living dementia (58%) and overall burden for caregivers (57%). Healthcare providers were overall satisfied with the program (91%): many found the referral process easy (98%) and were able to access information about the program to share with their clients (94%). Strengths of the survey included its broad reach, the ability to quantify the impact of the program and the identification of specific areas for improvement. Limitations included challenges in interpreting the data in relation to the services offered, and lack of depth. A second phase of the program evaluation will harness qualitative interviews to address these limitations. Conclusion This study will inform future research on their methodologies in program evaluations as well as improve the existing services to support people living with and impacted by 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 | 0.049 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".