A nursing mentoring programme on non‐pharmacological interventions against BPSD: Effectiveness and use of antipsychotics—A retrospective, before–after study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and have significant implications for patients and caregivers. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) have shown to be effective in the management of BPSD. However, the use of antipsychotics to treat BPSD remains ubiquitous. This retrospective, before-after study aimed to examine whether a nurse mentoring programme promoting NPI for BPSD management had a significant association with the use of antipsychotics in older adults with major neurocognitive disorders residing in different settings. Results obtained from the medical files of 134 older adults having benefitted from the mentoring programme demonstrate that this intervention significantly reduced BPSD. The effect on antipsychotics use was modest: a 10% reduction in the use of antipsychotics has been observed among patients for which the NPI were effective. However, the use of antipsychotics remained widespread despite the nursing recommendations of the mentoring team of the Center of Excellence on Aging in Quebec (CEVQ).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".