Coaching for informal caregivers of persons living with dementia: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".