MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285104405 · doi:10.2196/37108

Virtual Intervention for Caregivers of Persons With Lewy Body Dementia: Pilot Quasi-Experimental Single-Arm Study

2022· article· en· W4285104405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oleg Zaslavsky, Jasmine Kaneshiro, Frances Chu, Andrew K. Teng, Kimiko Domoto‐Reilly, Annie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingUniversity of Washington
KeywordsDementiaLonelinessPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionDistressPopulationAttritionGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compared to other types of dementia, family caregivers of people with Lewy body dementia (LBD) report higher stress levels and more severe depressive symptoms. Although several digital support interventions for caregivers of persons with dementia exist, few target LBD specifically or leverage a fully remote and asynchronous approach suitable for pandemic circumstances. OBJECTIVE: We performed a pilot evaluation of a digital intervention designed to help caregivers of people with LBD address challenges they have experienced, with the end goal of reducing psychological distress in this population. METHODS: We recruited 15 family caregivers of people with LBD to participate in the quasi-experimental, single-arm, mixed methods study titled Virtual Online Communities for Aging Life Experience-Lewy Body Dementia (VOCALE-LBD). The study offers an 8-week web-based intervention that uses a digital discussion platform and involves moderation, peer-to-peer support, didactic training, and problem-solving skill enactment. RESULTS: Participants' baseline characteristics were the following: mean age 66 (SD 8) years; 14 of 15 (93%) of them were female; all (15/15, 100%) were White; and 8 (53%) of them had at least a postgraduate degree. Throughout the intervention, participants engaged in weekly web-based discussions, generating a total of 434 posts (average 4 posts per week). Attrition was 20% (3/15). Upon study exit, participants showed the following average improvements: 3.0 (SD 6.0) in depression, 8.3 (SD 16.7) in burden, 2.9 (SD 6.8) in stress, and 0.3 (SD 0.8) in loneliness. When looking at the proportion of participants with clinically significant improvement versus those with a worsening of ≥0.5 SD for each outcome, we observed net improvements of 50% (6/12), 33% (4/12), 25% (3/12), and 25% (3/12) in depression, loneliness, burden, and stress, respectively. In terms of the benefits of participation, participants reported that participation helped them "a great deal" to (1) improve their understanding of LBD (9/12, 75%), (2) gain confidence in dealing with difficult behaviors of the care recipient (6/12, 50%), and (3) improve in one's abilities to provide care to the care recipient (4/12, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: The study generated promising feasibility and preliminary efficacy data for a low-cost, web-based intervention designed for caregivers of persons with LBD. Though the study was not powered for significance, we observed nominal average and net improvements in important psychological outcomes. Moreover, many caregivers reported that study participation helped them better understand the disease, feel more confident in dealing with difficult behaviors of the care recipient, and improve their ability to care for the care recipient. If validated in future studies, the intervention could be an accessible, on-demand resource for caregivers, enabling them to engage in moderated remote discussions with peers at their own convenience in terms of location, time of the day, and frequency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207