Developing a new clinical interview to assess awareness in dementia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background People with dementia differ in degree of awareness of difficulties. Awareness can influence well‐being, communication and relationships, and impact on personal safety and decision‐making in everyday and clinical situations. Evaluating awareness could facilitate person‐centered care. A scoping review identified the lack of a brief, multidimensional clinical tool. We aimed to develop and test a new awareness interview for clinical use. Method Measure development was informed by scoping review findings, available evidence about awareness phenomena in dementia, and considerations of suitability for remote as well as in‐person administration. Some items were drawn from existing validated measures, covering awareness of functional ability, memory, and socio‐emotional functioning, and new items were developed to assess awareness of medication management and mobility, providing a profile of awareness across these domains. Scoring was based on calculation of discrepancies between self‐rating and either informant ratings or objective memory task performance, as well as self‐reported acknowledgement of specific symptoms. The interview was tested for feasibility and acceptability in a remotely‐administered pilot study. The interview was administered to 31 community‐dwelling people with mild‐to‐moderate dementia recruited in England in 2020‐2021, via telephone or Zoom video‐call. A caregiver, acting as an informant, completed a corresponding questionnaire in advance. Cognitive ability of the participant with dementia was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment‐5 minute protocol (MoCA‐5 min). Structured and open‐ended feedback was obtained from participants and caregivers Result The interview was completed by 29 participants with MoCA‐5 min scores ranging from 9.5 to 29.Two participants with lower MoCA‐5 min scores were unable to complete the interview. Remote administration was straightforward with few challenges, taking on average under 11 minutes. Awareness profiles showed a spectrum of awareness across domains. Feedback indicated that interview questions were acceptable and understandable, but certain aspects, such as the memory task, could be somewhat upsetting as they highlighted current difficulties. Conclusion The new Healthcare Awareness Profile Interview (HAPI) shows potential as an evidence‐based brief clinical tool for assessing awareness in people with mild‐to‐moderate dementia. Following discussions with clinical advisory and patient and public involvement groups, a final version will be prepared for a larger validation study.
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 | 0.036 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".