Promoting empowerment for people living with dementia in nursing homes: Development and feasibility evaluation of an empowerment program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article describes the development and feasibility evaluation of an empowerment program for people living with dementia in nursing homes. METHODS: Development and feasibility evaluation of the empowerment program was guided by the British Medical Research Council's (MRC) framework. In the developmental phase, we used intervention mapping to develop the theory- and evidence-based intervention. During the feasibility phase, two care teams utilised the program from September to December 2020. We evaluated the feasibility in terms of demand, acceptability, implementation, practicality, integration and limited efficacy. FINDINGS: This study showed that, according to healthcare professionals, the program was feasible for promoting empowerment for people living with dementia in a nursing home. Healthcare professionals mentioned an increased awareness regarding the four themes of empowerment (sense of identity, usefulness, control and self-worth), and greater focus on the small things that matter to residents. Healthcare professionals experienced challenges in involving family caregivers. CONCLUSION: An important step is to take into account the implementation prerequisites that follow from our findings, and to further investigate feasibility, as the use of the program and data collection was hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent research could investigate the effects of the empowerment program.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".