MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414171638 · doi:10.11124/jbies-25-00009

Coaching for informal caregivers of persons living with dementia: a scoping review protocol

2025· review· en· W4414171638 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel MacLean, Pamela Durepos, Lisa Keeping‐Burke, Katelyn Caverhill, Alex Goudreau, Patricia Morris, Rose McCloskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingProtocol (science)Health coachingQualitative researchWork (physics)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will describe dementia coaching programs, models, and practices for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling persons living with dementia. INTRODUCTION: Unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia often experience significant physical and emotional stress due to the complex nature of caregiving, yet many lack access to support tailored to their needs. Dementia coaching has emerged as a potential solution offering personalized guidance to help caregivers set goals, build coping strategies, and manage care responsibilities. However, wide variation in how dementia coaching is defined and delivered has created uncertainty around its implementation. A scoping review is needed to map the current landscape; identify existing programs, models, and practices; and highlight gaps in the literature to inform future service development. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This scoping review will include qualitative studies, quantitative studies, mixed methods studies, guidelines, policies, opinion papers, and gray literature on dementia coaching for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia, with no restrictions on language or publication date. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Published literature will be located using MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL with Full-Text (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Abstracts in Social Gerontology (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. References of included studies will be hand-searched and gray literature identified via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), Google Scholar, Google, and relevant dementia- and caregiver-related websites. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, with a third resolving any discrepancies. Findings will be presented through narrative summaries, tables, charts, and publications. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://osf.io/u6vj8.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207