A scoping review of interventions for Hispanic caregivers of persons living with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. Guided by PROGRESS‐Plus, a framework of health equity factors that affect behavioral intervention outcomes, we conducted a scoping review of studies from the United States that addressed caregiver intervention development or adaptation for Hispanic/Latinos. We included 41 articles from 1729 screened, representing data from 25 unique interventions. Factors most frequently addressed across studies included place of residence, race, ethnicity, language, culture, sex, years of education, and age. Factors less studied included occupation, gender identity and sexual orientation, religious beliefs, literacy, socioeconomic status, social capital (marital status, family size, or significant other/social connectedness), and disability. This review identified key intersectionality factors that may affect the acceptability, effectiveness, and long‐term sustainability of interventions supporting Hispanic/Latino caregivers of persons living with dementia and can help guide the tailoring of future interventions. Highlights Hispanic/Latino caregivers of persons with dementia are disproportionately affected and face sociocultural and health equity factors that may impact acceptability, effectiveness, and sustainability of caregiver interventions. Our scoping review, guided by a health equity framework, examined the consideration of intersectional factors in different stages of the development or adaptation of 25 existing caregiver interventions. Most sociocultural factors outside of ethnicity and culture are not routinely considered in interventions for Hispanic/Latino dementia informal caregivers, except in demographic reporting. These gaps represent opportunities for increasing inclusivity to develop and implement interventions that are more widely accessible and relevant, lead to benefits for a greater number of Hispanic/Latino informal caregivers, and improve health equity in dementia care.
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 | 0.020 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".