Distance interventions for enhancing preparedness in informal caregivers of older adults: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Informal caregivers provide care to older adults but report lack of preparedness to enact the role. Intervention programs delivered by distance offer one alternative to support preparedness. Three review studies conducted to date have highlighted the benefits of distance interventions for enhancing preparedness among informal caregivers of older adults. However, these reviews have been limited in presenting and discussing how intervention components influenced outcomes. Additionally, they have not compared different distance delivery approaches for informal caregivers of older adults or assessed their varying impact on preparedness outcomes. These limitations make the effectiveness of diverse distance approaches unclear. AIM: To evaluate the effects of distance interventions aimed at enhancing preparedness among informal caregivers of older adults. METHODS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines and is guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. It has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023400668). Databases used in the search will include CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Global. The search will not be restricted by publication year to include all relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese will be included. Study quality will be assessed using Downs and Black's checklist. If metanalysis is possible, it will be performed using the ReviewManager (RevMan) software. CONCLUSIONS: The study will be the first of its type to systematically review and synthesize components and approaches of distance interventions aimed at supporting preparedness of informal caregivers of older adults.
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 | 0.061 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.016 |
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".