Adapting and Testing the Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool for Use in Dementia Care: Protocol for a 2 Sequential Phase Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research and policy demonstrate the value of and need for systematically identifying and preparing care partners for their caregiving responsibilities while their family member or friend living with dementia is hospitalized. The Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool (CHAT) has undergone content and face validation and has been endorsed as appropriate by clinicians to facilitate the timely identification and preparation of care partners of older adult patients during their hospitalization. However, the CHAT has not yet been adapted or prospectively evaluated for use with care partners of hospitalized people living with dementia. Adapting and testing the CHAT via a pilot study will provide the necessary evidence to optimize feasibility and enable future efficacy trials. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the study protocol for the adaptation and testing of the CHAT for use among care partners of hospitalized people living with dementia to better prepare them for their caregiving responsibilities after hospital discharge. METHODS: Our protocol is based on the National Institutes of Health Stage Model and consists of 2 sequential phases, including formative research and the main trial. In phase 1, we will use a participatory human-centered design process that incorporates people living with dementia and their care partners, health care administrators, and clinicians to adapt the CHAT for dementia care (ie, the Dementia CHAT [D-CHAT]; stage IA). In phase 2, we will partner with a large academic medical system to complete a pilot randomized controlled trial to examine the feasibility and estimate the size of the effect of the D-CHAT on care partners' preparedness for caregiving (stage IB). We anticipate this study to take approximately 60 months to complete, from study start-up procedures to dissemination. The 2 phases will take place between December 1, 2022, and November 30, 2027. RESULTS: The study protocol will yield (1) a converged-upon, ready-for-feasibility testing D-CHAT; (2) descriptive and feasibility characteristics of delivering the D-CHAT; and (3) effect size estimates of the D-CHAT on care partner preparedness. We anticipate that the resultant D-CHAT will provide clinicians with guidance on how to identify and better prepare care partners for hospitalized people living with dementia. In turn, care partners will feel equipped to fulfill caregiving roles for their family members or friends living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The expected results of this study are to favorably impact hospital-based care processes and outcomes for people living with dementia and their care partners and to elucidate the essential caregiving role that so many care partners of people living with dementia assume. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05592366; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05592366. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46808.
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 | 0.099 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.016 |
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".