Caregiver (Current and Bereaved) Perceptions of a Psychoeducation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informal caregivers (CG) of persons with dementia can experience increased negative effects and symptoms of burden as the disease progresses, with long-term effects into bereavement. The purpose of this study was to describe staff and attendees’ perceptions of a unique CG psychoeducation program located in a Specialized Care Unit for persons with advanced dementia at end-of-life. This study used a qualitative descriptive design, which aimed to describe a natural experience. Sixteen individual interviews were conducted with current and bereaved CGs who jointly participated in the program, health care professionals (HCP) in the Specialized Care Unit and social work facilitators to understand experiences, perceived benefits and barriers of the program. Thematic content analysis was conducted with data collection following Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board approval. Final results indicate that the program was perceived positively, across all participant groups. Caregivers reported that the program contributed to improved emotional well-being, development of a close community, disease preparedness and empowerment. Participants also appreciated the open-ended, informal format of the program with continuity into bereavement. The study findings support the unique characteristics of this psychoeducation program compared to traditional education / support programs, which are closed to bereaved members and time-limited. This program model is translatable to multiple settings including long-term care. Moreover, study findings highlight the movement towards relationship-centered care for persons with dementia and their CGs. A future mixed-method study is warranted to measure quantitative outcomes, such as complicated grief, within CGs attending the program before and after bereavement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".