Better living with non‐memory led dementia: results from a pilot randomised clinical trial of an online training programme for carers of people with PCA, PPA and bvFTD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dementias starting with symptoms other than memory are low prevalent. Educational and training resources for caregivers of people living with these conditions are scarce and difficult to access. The aim of this trial is to test the feasibility of an online training program for carers of people with three non‐memory led dementias: Posterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA), Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) and behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD). The trial design is a randomised feasibility study. Method Setting: Community. Participants were recruited from the organisation Rare Dementia Support (RDS). Participants: Carers of people with PCA, PPA and bvFTD Intervention: The experimental group was given access to an eight‐week online program consisting of 6 digital manuals addressing practical strategies to better support people living with PCA, PPA or bvFTD (depending on diagnosis of the care recipient). The control group was directed to RDS’s existing website (TAU). Outcome measures: Feasibility of recruitment, measurement tools (clinical outcomes, see Table 1) and acceptability. Measures were collected at baseline, immediate post intervention (8 weeks post‐randomisation) and 3 months post‐randomisation. Randomization: Allocation ratio was 2:1 (intervention: control) stratified by diagnosis carried out by a central computer system. Participants were unblinded to intervention. All measures were self‐reported online by the participants. Result Numbers randomized: 31 participants were recruited. 30 participants were randomized (1/31 did not complete baseline) (21 to intervention, 9 to control group). Trial status: closed. Numbers analysed: 30 participants for intention to treat analysis (3 dropped out). Outcomes: Feasibility of recruitment (see Figure 1 Flowchart) is 40% (31 people consented/78 approached). Retention rate is 87%. The proportion of eligible participants who agree to participate is 97% (30/31).Assessment of feasibility of measurement tools (proposed clinical outcomes) shows 96% response rates at 8 weeks (29/30) and 90% (27/30) at 3 months. Acceptability: 100% of participants agreed to be randomised. Intervention coherence: 28% (6/21) participants interacted with facilitator during the intervention. Follow‐up qualitative interviews were conducted to gain a better understanding of how to improve intervention coherence. Conclusion The trialled intervention shows excellent feasibility of recruitment, retention and measurement tools. Enhancement of intervention coherence is required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".