ASSIST: a reablement program for older adults in Sweden – a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Western countries emphasise the provision of assistive home care by implementing reablement services. Reablement services are offered to a limited degree in Sweden, and systematic research regarding outcomes and how reablement can be tailored to maximize benefits for older adults has been lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a novel reablement program (ASSIST 1.0) regarding study design and outcome measures, as well as fidelity, adherence, and acceptability of the program in a Swedish context. METHOD: A non-randomised, quasi-experimental, mixed-method, pre/post-test design was applied with an intervention group receiving ASSIST 1.0 (n = 7) and a control group receiving regular home care (n = 10). ASSIST 1.0 was developed to empower older adults to increase their perceived performance and satisfaction of performing activities in everyday life as well as increase their perceived health, self-efficacy, and well-being. ASSIST 1.0 was founded on the concept of reablement and included three components: i) goal setting with The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), ii) provided support to home care staff to enhance their provision of reablement, and iii) explored the incorporation and use of an information- and communication technology (ICT) to facilitate information transfer. RESULTS: Using COPM for goal setting with older adults and providing support to the staff via workshops were valuable components in the delivery of ASSIST 1.0. The ICT product encountered several challenges and could not be evaluated. COPM and EQ-5D were deemed the most important instruments. Organisational and political barriers affected the feasibility. Although, the fidelity and adherence were complied the staff perceived the program to be acceptable. CONCLUSION: The ASSIST 1.0 program was feasible in regard of study design, delivering the intervention, and evaluating instruments that detected a change. A logical progression would be to conduct a full-scale trial. In addition, a usability study to evaluate the technological component is also recommended. With minor improvements, the ASSIST 1.0 program has the potential to contribute to the development of a home care organisation that could enhance older adults possibility to age in place at home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03505619.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".