MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379739657 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2023.04.031

Feasibility and Effects of Namaste Care for Persons with Advanced Dementia in Canadian Long-Term Care Homes

2023· article· en· W4379739657 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Lee Yous, Paulette V. Hunter, Esther Coker, Kathryn Fisher, Maria Nicula, Nadia Kazmie, Vanina Dal Bello‐Haas, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Carrie McAiney, Genevieve Thompson, Sharon Kaasalainen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of ReginaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer Society
KeywordsMedicineDementiaIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)GerontologyLong-term careCaregiver stressFamily caregiversFamily medicineNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effects of the Namaste Care intervention for persons with advanced dementia (ie, moderate and late-stage) in long-term care (LTC) and their family carers. DESIGN: A pre-posttest study design. Staff carers delivered Namaste Care for residents with the support of volunteers in a small group setting. Activities provided included aromatherapy, music, and snacks/beverages. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents with advanced dementia and family carers from 2 Canadian LTC homes, located in a midsize metropolitan area, were included. METHODS: Feasibility was evaluated using a research activity log. Outcome data for residents (ie, quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms, pain) and family carers (ie, role stress, quality of family visits) were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months of the intervention. Descriptive analyses and generalized estimating equations were used for quantitative data. RESULTS: A total of 53 residents with advanced dementia and 42 family carers participated in the study. Mixed findings were found for feasibility as not all intervention targets were met. There was a significant improvement in resident neuropsychiatric symptoms at the 3-month time point only (95% CI -9.39, -0.39; P = .033) and family carer role stress at both time points (3-month 95% CI -37.40, -1.80; P = .031; 6-month 95% CI -48.90, -2.09; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Namaste Care is an intervention with preliminary evidence of impact. Feasibility findings revealed that not all targets were met as the intended number of sessions were not delivered. Future research should explore how many sessions per week are required to lead to an impact. It is important to assess outcomes for both residents and family carers, and to consider enhancing family engagement in delivering the intervention. Given the promise of this intervention, a large-scale randomized controlled trial with a longer follow-up should be conducted to further evaluate its outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207