Educating Homecare Nurses about Deprescribing of Medications to Manage Polypharmacy for Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness of educational intervention with homecare nurses about deprescribing of medications among older adults. An evaluation research study was conducted using survey design to evaluate deprescribing education with a total sample of 45 homecare nurses from three homecare organizations. Post-training evaluation data were evaluated using Likert scale and open-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses and qualitative thematic analysis. Post-intervention questionnaire responses provided descriptions about homecare nurses' perspectives related to deprescribing education, as well as the effectiveness of training in addressing their knowledge gaps. The pilot-testing of deprescribing learning modules and educational training revealed acceptability and suitability for future scale-up to expand its future reach and adoption by other homecare organizations. This study provided important implications into the barriers that impact the effectiveness of deprescribing education, and facilitators that support the future refinement of learning modules.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".