Development of Best Practice Guidance on Online Peer Support for People With Young Onset Dementia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people with young onset dementia (YOD) may feel isolated. Peer support has the potential to improve social health, but the inconsistent availability of age-appropriate, in-person (peer) support services for people with YOD suggests that many people with YOD miss out on the potential benefits. Online peer support could be useful, as it overcomes geographical barriers, offers a variety of options, and adjusts to various needs and preferences. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to develop evidence-based best practice guidance on online peer support for people with YOD and group facilitators to improve online peer support for people with YOD. METHODS: Our mixed methods study consists of 4 phases and follows the guidelines of the Medical Research Council on complex interventions. Each phase consists of multiple substudies. The study focuses on the development stage of the Medical Research Council framework and additionally develops a plan for the feasibility/piloting, evaluation, and implementation stages. The participants are people living with YOD and peer support facilitators. The qualitative research methods include interviews, focus groups, and open questions in a web-based survey. The quantitative methods include a web-based survey consisting of existing outcome measures. RESULTS: The study is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions - Innovative Training Networks (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018; grant agreement number: 813196), and it received ethical approval from the London Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 21/LO/0248) in April 2021. Recruitment started in May 2021. Data collection and analysis are expected to be finished by September 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The best practice guidance can provide people with YOD with tailored and evidence-based information about online peer support, and it will be disseminated locally (in the United Kingdom) and internationally through dementia organizations, research networks, and academic institutions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38379.
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 | 0.106 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.020 |
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".