Investigation of Activity Performance of Primer Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was designed to examine the change of activity performance areas due to being primer family caregiver of a geriatric individual with dementia from occupational therapy perspective. Materials and Method: This study was performed in Hacettepe University Geriatrics Unit between January 2014 and April 2014 on caregivers of geriatric individuals with and without dementia who live at home. Caregivers (n:20) of individuals with dementia as the study group and without damentia (n:30) as the control group were selected by simple random sampling method. Socio-demographic characteristics questionnaire and Canada Activity Performance Measurement was used. Results: Study group’s mean age was 59.8 ±8.69 years, while 56.13 ±5.06 years in control group. Problems experienced in study group in recreational activities were taking time for own (35%), going doctor (25%), shopping (20%), walking (10%) and cooking (5%) in productivity area while spending time with children (30%), looking grandchildren (13.3%), spending time with friends (10%) in recreational area; and cooking (10%) in productivity area of control group. Self-care activities were the common problem performance area. conclusion: Client-centered occupational therapy programmes which include activity participation to self care, productivity and recreational activites is important to reduce the negative influences of being a caregiver of an individual with dementia
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".