Roles and usages of neuro service dogs for caregivers living at home with persons with dementia: An exploratory comparative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to examine how canine assistance may support family caregivers and persons with dementia and to document and compare two modalities of home care support. An exploratory comparative case study research design was conducted. Three cases correspond of dyads of a caregiver, a person with mild to moderate dementia, and either a neuro service dog (NSD), a companion dog or no dog. Hypotheses are formulated to capture differences between cases. Recruitment was done in a service dog organisation, through Canadian Alzheimer associations and in records of a hospital. Data were collected through 45-60 minutes telephone interviews that included completion of the Caregiver's Burden Scale and sociodemographic questions. We used an inductive approach with qualitative data. There were five caregivers (mean age 54.8 years) who had an NSD, 28 caregivers (63.6 years) who had a companion dog, and 23 caregivers (63.8 years) without dog. In the category of roles and usages of the dog, 'Socialisation' and 'Help with a sense of direction' were the most addressed roles for dyads with the NSD. For dyads with companion dog and without dog, 'Engagement-and-meaning of life' as well as 'Physical activity with the dog' were the most discussed roles. The 'Sleep or wake up' role was the least discussed role across three cases. In the other categories, they were seven advantages and 10 inconvenients that were mentioned for canine assistance. For home care support, the presence of NSD has more positive impacts on both the person with dementia and their caregiver compared to the presence of a companion dog; the presence of a NSD results in the person with dementia accessing more indoor and outdoor public sites than with a companion dog; and dyads with a dog are informally socially engaged more frequently than those with no dog.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".