Adult day programs and their effects on individuals with dementia and their caregivers (ADAPT-DemCare): a realist synthesis to develop program theories on the how and why
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult day programs aim to facilitate aging in place by supporting the health and well-being of persons with dementia and providing respite to their caregivers. However, studies on the effects of day programs are inconclusive, and we especially lack insights into the context conditions and mechanisms of day programs that may produce different outcomes for different groups of persons with dementia and their caregivers. Our objective was to conduct a realist review, synthesizing research on day programs to develop program theories explaining how and why day programs do or do not produce positive or negative outcomes for different groups of persons with dementia, and caregivers. METHODS: We identified 14 literature reviews (including 329 references published between 1975 and 2021) on adult day programs. From this initial pool of studies, we will include those that focused on day program attendees with dementia or meaningful cognitive impairment, and/or their caregivers, and that report how day program contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) bring about outcomes (O) for attendees and caregivers. We will extract CMO statements (i.e., narratives that explain how and why day programs do or do not bring about certain outcomes for whom and under what circumstances). Using additional focused searches, citation mapping, citation tracking, and discussions with our researcher and expert team members, we will identify additional references. CMO statements will be synthesized, transformed into hypotheses, and linked and visualized to form program theories. Using focus groups and the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method, we will discuss and prioritize our CMO statements and refine our program theories with 32 experts (older adults, caregivers, Alzheimer societies, caregiver organizations, day program staff and managers, and health system and policy decision makers). DISCUSSION: By identifying essential elements and processes of day programs and related knowledge gaps, this study will generate much-needed knowledge to leverage the full potential of day programs so they can provide appropriate care, preventing premature institutionalization, and unnecessary acute and primary care use. This will ultimately improve the quality of life of persons with dementia and their caregivers, alleviate caregiver burden, and reduce social costs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024504030.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".