Measuring quality and level of care provided by family caregivers of persons with dementia: protocol for a systematic review of validated instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in the quality-of-life (QoL) of family caregivers as they care for their loved ones with dementia over time may affect the quality or level of care that these caregivers provide. We do not know if validated instruments exist to directly measure this quality or level of care. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify validated instruments for measuring the quality or level of care provided by family caregivers of persons with dementia. METHODS: We will include articles containing a validated instrument or questionnaire designed to measure quality or level of care provided by the aforementioned group of caregivers. The included articles may utilize the tools in primary or secondary data analyses, or evaluate the tools' psychometric properties. The following electronic databases will be searched from inception date to the present: Medline, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO. We will also search the gray literature, the reference lists of included articles, and contact experts in the field to help identify relevant instruments. Included articles will be required to report on an instrument measuring at least one of the following outcomes: quality of care, level of care, appropriateness of care, amount of time spent providing care, and caregiver performance. Two reviewers will independently screen retrieved citations, extract data, and assess the methodological quality of each included article. A narrative synthesis method will be used to describe the findings. DISCUSSION: Results of this systematic review will show whether validated instruments exist to measure the quality or level of care provided by family caregivers of persons living with dementia. This will make it possible to develop initiatives that are targeted towards improving the quality or level of care provided by family caregivers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".