MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390083762 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igad104.2289

EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF AN EBOOK CLUB PROGRAM ON APATHY AMONG OLDER CANADIANS IN LONG-TERM CARE: A FEASIBILITY STUDY

2023· article· en· W4390083762 on OpenAlexaff
Aderonke Agboji, Shannon Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyClubDementiaPopulationPsychologyLong-term careMedicineGerontologyMedical educationCognitionPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Apathy is a common and persistent problem among older people in institutional settings. Research has shown that apathy can lead to rapid decline in cognitive status, serious functional impairments and decrease in the life span of those affected, yet it is under-researched, and under-managed. The aim of this study was to explore ways by which apathy can be mitigated in this population using eReader technology during book club program implementation. We recruited participants from various long-term care facilities (N=18) and each participants took part in semi-structured interviews, and self-reported apathy assessment both at the start and end of the program. We tracked engagement in the eBook club and time commitment to reading using a logbook. The findings suggest that older people, including persons with mild to moderate dementia, are open to adopting new technologies and the use of eReaders during book club programs is feasible for long term care facilities. Overall, we found that the use of eReader technology is a safer and more effective way of delivering book club program to older people in long term care facilities particularly during pandemic such as COVID 19 as they are easy to disinfect in comparison to physical books. We recommend that long term care staff should adapt eReaders into their existing book club or literacy programs and consider utilizing it as a strategy to prevent or manage apathy in this population.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→