Design, implementation and evaluation of informal home care support intervention program for lonely older adults in the community: Protocol for a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing lonely older adults with informal home care services is important to improving their health and quality of life. The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of design, implementation and evaluation of an informal home care support intervention program (HoSIP) for community-dwelling lonely older adults in Gorgan, Iran. METHOD/DESIGN: This feasibility study is a mixed-method with a concurrent nested design. Lonely older adults will be enrolled as the HoSIP intervention group and will receive 12-weeks of informal home care service by peer supporters. The purpose of this feasibility study is to determine the recruitment capability and resulting sample characteristics, data collection procedure and outcome measures, the acceptability and suitability of the intervention and study procedures, the resource and ability to manage the study and intervention, and preliminary evaluation of participant response to intervention. Primary outcomes including participant feelings of loneliness, quality of life, general health, social network, social support, and self-care ability, will be assessed at baseline and post-intervention for the intervention and control groups. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted immediately after the intervention using content qualitative approach to describe participants' experiences with HoSIP. DISCUSSION: Through this study we will examine the feasibility of delivering informal home care services to community-dwelling lonely older adults in a developing country through employing a concurrent nested mixed-method design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20190503043455N.
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 | 0.043 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.005 |
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".