Evaluation of the SPAN intervention for people living with young-onset dementia in the community and their family caregivers: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of the SPAN-intervention, a psychosocial intervention aiming at improving a sense of usefulness and engaging in meaningful activities, for community-dwelling people living with young-onset dementia (YOD) and their family caregivers.Methods A cluster-randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups (SPAN-intervention vs. care as usual) with assessments at baseline and five-month follow-up was performed. Sixty-one persons living with YOD and their family caregivers were included (SPAN-intervention group: n = 35; care as usual group: n = 26). Outcomes included, for the person living with YOD, empowerment (operationalized by self-management abilities using the SMAS-30; primary outcome), quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms, disability, apathy; and, for the family caregiver, quality of life, emotional distress, sense of competence. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models.Results We found no statistically significant effects of the SPAN-intervention on empowerment, nor on the secondary outcome measures for persons living with YOD or their family caregivers.Conclusion Although the SPAN-intervention may provide concrete opportunities to engage in activities and stimulate reciprocity, such as meaningful social activities, this study did not demonstrate intervention effects. Additional qualitative evaluations may provide more insight into the implementation process and experiences of people living with YOD and their family caregivers.This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02937883).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".