MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365790461 · doi:10.2196/41202

Usability, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Peer-Delivered and Technology-Supported Mental Health Intervention for Family Caregivers of People With Dementia: Field Usability Study

2023· article· en· W4365790461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Collins-Pisano, Amanda Leggett, David Gambee, Karen L. Fortuna

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsUsabilityDementiaFamily caregiversMental healthCaregiver stressIntervention (counseling)MedicinePeer supportmHealthNursingPsychologyPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers of people with dementia are critical to the quality of life of care recipients and the sustainability of health care systems but face an increased risk of emotional distress and negative physical and mental health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the usability, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a technology-based and caregiver-delivered peer support program, the Caregiver Remote Education and Support (CARES) smartphone or tablet app. METHODS: A total of 9 adult family caregivers of people with dementia received the CARES intervention, and 3 former family caregivers of people with dementia were trained to deliver it. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and at the end of the 2-week field usability study. Qualitative data were also collected at the end of the 2-week field usability study. RESULTS: The field usability study demonstrated that a 2-week peer-delivered and technology-supported mental health intervention designed to improve burden, stress, and strain levels was experienced by former and current family caregivers of people with dementia as acceptable. Current family caregivers rated CARES as above average in usability, whereas the caregiver peer supporters rated CARES as marginally usable. CARES was associated with non-statistically significant improvements in burden, stress, and strain levels. CONCLUSIONS: This field usability study demonstrated that it is possible to train former family caregivers of people with dementia to use technology to deliver a mental health intervention to current family caregivers of people with dementia. Future studies would benefit from a longer trial; a larger sample size; a randomized controlled design; and a control of covariables such as stages of dementia, years providing care, and severity of dementia symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207