Assessing the impact of day programs on individuals living with dementia and their family/friend caregivers (AIDA-DemCare): protocol of a prospective cohort study combined with a qualitative evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with dementia, their family/friend caregivers, and health systems agree that the preferred place of dementia care is a person's home. Health systems have struggled to provide sufficient community-based dementia care supports, negatively affecting the health and well-being of persons with dementia and their caregivers. Therefore, dementia care and support of dementia caregivers are critical public health priorities. Adult day programs aim to simultaneously support the health and well-being of persons with dementia and their caregivers, but research focusing on these day program outcomes is lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare various outcomes of day program attendees with dementia and their caregivers over time to outcomes of non-attendees with dementia in the community (with care needs similar to those of attendees) and their caregivers. METHODS: In each of four Canadian health regions (York Region, Ontario; Interior Health, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Winnipeg, Manitoba), this study will recruit 250 day program attendees with dementia and their caregivers, and 500 community-based non-attendees with dementia and their caregivers. Applying criteria used by the health system to determine day program eligibility, we will identify non-attendees with care needs similar to those of attendees. We will combine participants' longitudinal health administrative data with repeated (baseline, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up) surveys to include variables not routinely collected by healthcare systems. Primary study outcomes are quality of life of the person with dementia and their caregiver. Secondary study outcomes include mental health (older adults, caregivers), cognitive and physical decline (older adults), time to admission to congregate care (older adults), and emergency room, hospital, and primary care use (older adults, caregivers). Using a day program survey, we will also assess day program characteristics. Using covariate-adjusted general estimating equations and time-to-event models, we will compare these outcomes between groups of day program exposure (no, low, medium, high). DISCUSSION: Persons living with dementia, their caregivers, and health systems urgently need solutions to support living at home with a good quality of life. This study will generate provide evidence on the potential of day programs to address these critical public healt needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06496945.
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 | 0.039 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".