MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312104262 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igac059.1720

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN ONLINE TRAINING COURSE FOR MEETING NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH CAREGIVING BURDEN

2022· article· en· W4312104262 on OpenAlexaff
Shera Hosseini, Lorraine Carter, Donna Thomson, Michelle Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisCompetence (human resources)Caregiver burdenFamily caregiversDementiaPsychologyMedical educationLong-term careNursingAction planCoping (psychology)Peer supportBlameQualitative researchMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Informal caregivers make up a critical part of long-term support in the communities due to their important role in caring for older adults living at home. Modern-day caregivers are facing greater responsibility and burden for managing their care recipients. The present study aimed to explore the effect of a caregiving training program in alleviating caregiver burden. This program included four standalone online modules each with specific foci. Completion of activities across the modules allowed for the creation of a Caregiver Action Plan which offered a personal and practical resource to the informal caregivers. This evaluation study was qualitative and a used thematic analysis method of data analysis. Data stemmed from semi-structured interviews with the caregivers and their reflections on the program’s discussion board. Most caregivers provided care for persons with dementia. Interviews with the family caregivers were conducted, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Themes were identified through constant comparison and in an iterative process. The family caregivers demonstrated consensus on the efficacy of the program in raising competence and confidence and contributing to ameliorating burden levels. Important themes were identified in association with areas for which the caregivers needed support: Early dementia education, planning for future care, learning about navigating healthcare systems, peer support, enhancing self-care, and coping with emotional burden and self-blame. The findings will be informative in shaping the program based on the caregiver’s identified needs through addressing those areas that they would need support. These findings may offer recommendations to other programs designed to support the family caregivers.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207