Usability of a Community-Based Dementia Resource Website: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Many individuals living with dementia want to live in their own homes for as long as possible. To do so, they frequently require assistance with activities of daily living, which is often provided by friends and relatives acting as informal care partners. In Canada, many informal care partners are currently overworked and overwhelmed. Although community-based dementia-inclusive resources are available to support them, care partners often struggle to find them. Dementia613.ca was created to make the process of finding community dementia-inclusive resources simpler and more straightforward by bringing them together in one eHealth website. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The objective of our study was to determine if dementia613.ca is meeting the goal of connecting care partners and persons living with dementia to dementia-inclusive resources in their community. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> A review and assessment of the website was conducted using 3 evaluation methods: web analytics, questionnaires, and task analysis. Google Analytics was used to collect data related to website use over a 9-month period. Data on site content and user characteristics were collected. Furthermore, 2 web-based self-administered questionnaires were developed: one intended for care partners and persons living with dementia, and the other intended for businesses and organizations interested in serving persons living with dementia. Both gathered data on user characteristics and included standard questions used in website evaluations. Responses were collected over a 6-month period. Scenarios, tasks, and questions were developed for the moderated, remote, and task-analysis sessions. These tasks and questions determined how effectively persons living with dementia and their care partners can use dementia613.ca. Overall, 5 sessions were held with persons experiencing moderate cognitive decline and with care partners of persons living with dementia. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> This evaluation showed that the idea behind dementia613.ca is strong and appeals to persons living with dementia, their care partners, and the businesses and organizations serving this market. Participants indicated that it is a useful community resource that meets a previously unfulfilled need in the area, and highlighted the benefits of bringing community resources together on 1 website. In our questionnaire, &gt;60% (19/29, 66%) of people living with dementia and their care partners and 70% (7/10) of businesses and organizations agreed that the website made it easier to find relevant dementia-inclusive resources. There is room for improvement; participants indicated that the navigation and search features could be further developed. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> We believe that the dementia613.ca model could be used to inspire and guide the creation of dementia resource websites in other regions in Ontario and beyond. The framework behind it is generalizable and could be replicated to help care partners and persons living with dementia find local resources more easily. </sec>
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".