MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311018689 · doi:10.1177/14713012221144485

A scoping review of family-centered interventions in dementia care

2022· review· en· W4311018689 on OpenAlexaff
Meena Ramachandran, Kshama Bangera, Sebestina Anita Dsouza, Patrícia Belchior

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMcGill UniversityBridgepoint Active Healthcare
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionDementiaContext (archaeology)Occupational therapyMedicineGerontologyPsychologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Families of persons living with dementia provide varying levels and forms of support to their loved ones and experience changes in familial dynamics, roles, and responsibilities over time. Family-centered care can enable their successful adaptation and participation in meaningful occupations. This scoping review aimed to explore available familycentered interventions for persons living with dementia, with a focus on occupational therapy. Three databases were searched and 31 eligible studies were found. Thirteen family-centered interventions were identified that were mostly multicomponent in nature, of which three involved occupational therapy. These interventions were investigated using a range of study designs and addressed outcomes related to the person with dementia, primary caregiver, and extended social network. With respect to study context, most interventions were developed in the United States and other Western countries with a limited number located in other contexts. The review findings underline the need for developing more family-centered interventions within occupational therapy, particularly for different contexts and cultures, and for translating available interventions to practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207