Development and Evaluation of a Clinician-Vetted Dementia Caregiver Resources Website: Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 11 million Americans are caregivers for the 6.7 million Americans currently living with dementia. They provide over 18 billion hours of unpaid care per year, yet most have no formal dementia education or support. It is extremely difficult for clinicians to keep up with the demand for caregiver education, especially as dementia is neurodegenerative in nature, requiring different information at different stages of the disease process. In this digital age, caregivers often seek dementia information on the internet, but clinicians lack a single, reliable compendium of expert-approved digital resources to provide to dementia caregivers. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to create a dementia caregiver resources website to serve as a hub for user-friendly, high-quality, and expert-reviewed dementia educational resources that clinicians can easily supply to family caregivers of people with dementia. METHODS: An interdisciplinary website development team (representing dementia experts from occupational therapy, nursing, social work, geriatrics, and neurology) went through 6 iterative steps of website development to ensure resource selection quality and eligibility rigor. Steps included (1) resource collection, (2) creation of eligibility criteria, (3) resource organization by topic, (4) additional content identification, (5) finalize resource selection, and (6) website testing and launch. Website visits were tracked, and a 20-item survey about website usability and utility was sent to Veterans Affairs tele-geriatrics interdisciplinary specialty care groups. RESULTS: Following website development, the dementia caregiver resource website was launched in February 2022. Over the first 9 months, the site averaged 1100 visits per month. The 3 subcategories with the highest number of visits were "general dementia information," "activities of daily living," and "self-care and support." Most (44/45, 98%) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the website was easy to navigate, and all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the resources were useful. CONCLUSIONS: The iterative process of creating the dementia caregiver resources website included continuous identification, categorization, and prioritization of resources, followed by clinician feedback on website usability, accessibility, and suggestions for improvement. The website received thousands of visits and positive clinician reviews in its first 9 months. Results demonstrate that an expert-vetted, nationally, and remotely available resource website allows for easy access to dementia education for clinicians to provide for their patients and caregivers. This process of website development can serve as a model for other clinical subspecialty groups seeking to create a comprehensive educational resource for populations who lack easy access to specialty care.
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 | 0.107 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".