Factors influencing the positive aspects of caring for dementia patients by family caregivers: a systematic mixed studies review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To provide an overview of the various influencing factors related to the positive aspects of caring for dementia patients by family caregivers. DESIGN: A systematic mixed studies review. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided this protocol as reported. Peer-reviewed studies published in English from 1997 to the present will be searched via information sources, gray literature, and the following databases: Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will also be retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This will be a mixed studies review. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool will be used for the mixed-method studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control and cohort studies and the JBI quality scale for cross-sectional and interventional (i.e., randomized or quasi-experimental) studies will be consulted. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be used for the qualitative studies. All the data will be extricated with JBI data extraction tools. The convergent synthesis method will be used in the review. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will synthesize and analyze the factors that influence the positive aspects of caring for dementia patients by family caregivers. CONCLUSION: The findings will help decision-makers to adopt more appropriate and effective interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: This review protocol will ascertain the factors affecting the mediation of and path to improved caregiving, explore the factors' action mechanisms, and examine the controlling factors to design a more targeted intervention program to improve caregiving, thus improving dementia patients' outcomes and care. Contributions of the findings will include evidence of strategies that address ongoing dementia caregiving issues and the identification of areas for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".