A realist evaluation of a support and training program for family caregivers in the municipality of Envigado: A research protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In Envigado, Colombia, the Secretariat of Health has implemented, since 2011, an interprofessional program involving nurses to support and train relatives to improve the quality of life of people with a loss of autonomy and their family caregivers. The objectives of this study are to assess the outcomes of this program and to explore the contextual elements and mechanisms that can explain these outcomes. DESIGN: This article presents the research protocol for a realist evaluation that will be carried out to gather the perspectives of various local stakeholders involved. METHODS: Four outcomes on family caregivers will be measured quantitatively using self-administered questionnaires and numerical scales. Contextual elements and mechanisms will then be explored qualitatively through focus groups and individual interviews. An iterative analysis will enable the refinement of a program theory. RESULTS: The results will inform a program theory that underlies the outcomes of the family caregiver support and training program. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Community stakeholders, family caregivers, people with a loss of autonomy and their relatives will be involved in data collection and/or in the validation of the program theory.
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 | 0.040 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".