Online Educational Tools for Caregivers of People with Dementia: A Scoping Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers of people with dementia provide the majority of health-based care to people with dementia. Providing this care requires knowledge and access to resources, which caregivers often do not receive. We set out to evaluate the effect of online educational tools on informal caregiver self-efficacy, quality of life, burden/stress, depression, and anxiety, and to identify effective processes for online educational tool development. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of articles on online educational interventions for informal caregivers of people with dementia searching CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed from 1990 to March 2018, with an updated search conducted in 2020. The identified articles were screened and the data were charted. RESULTS: 33 articles that reported on 24 interventions were included. There is some evidence that online interventions improve caregiver-related outcomes such as self-efficacy, depression, dementia knowledge, and quality of life; and decrease caregiver burden. Common findings across the studies included the need for tailored, stage-specific information applicable to the caregiver's situation and the use of psychosocial techniques to develop the knowledge components of the interventions. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the importance of having caregivers and health-care professionals involved at all stages of tool conceptualization and development. Online tools should be evaluated with robust trials that focus on how increased knowledge and development approaches affect caregiver-related outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it