Knowledge exchange throughout the dementia care journey by Canadian rural community-based health care practitioners, persons with dementia, and their care partners: an interpretive descriptive study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Accessing, assessing, exchanging, and applying dementia care information can be challenging in rural communities for healthcare practitioners (HCPs), persons with dementia (PWD), and their care partners. The overall purpose of this research was to enable HCPs, care partners, and PWD to use dementia care information more effectively by examining their information needs, how these change over time, and how they access, assess, and apply the knowledge. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive descriptive approach was used. A convenience sample was initially recruited through study collaborators in Southwestern Ontario, followed by purposive sampling. Nine rural dementia care networks consisting of PWD (n = 5), care partners (n = 14), and HCPs (n = 14) were recruited and 80 interviews were conducted at three time points. Transcripts were coded using Lubrosky's thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six stages of the dementia care journey were identified: (1) recognizing the symptoms; (2) receiving a diagnosis; (3) loss of independence; (4) initiating and using home care and respite services; (5) long-term care (LTC) placement; and (6) decisions related to end-of-life care. Rural care partners identified the need for different types of knowledge during each of these critical decision points of the dementia care journey. They accessed information from family members, friends, local organizations, and dementia internet sites. Persons with dementia tended not to identify the need for dementia care information. The HCPs accessed dementia care information from their own organization, other organizations, and internet sites. Care partners and HCPs assessed the trustworthiness of the information based on whether the source was a well-known agency or their own organization. Barriers to knowledge exchange included: lack of rural community-based services for dementia care; care partners reluctant to seek help and had limited energy; and lack of integration of dementia-related services and supports. Facilitators of knowledge exchange included: rural care partners with healthcare experience who were actively seeking information; development of trusting relationships between HCPs, care partners, and PWD; and formal mechanisms for exchanging information within and across rural community-based organizations. METHODS: This research illustrates the stages of the dementia care journey, and the types of information typically needed, accessed, assessed, and applied at each stage. Healthcare practitioners can use these findings to support rural care partners in navigating their dementia care journey. Support is needed as care partners often do not have the time, energy, skills, or knowledge to seek out dementia care information independently. In addition, PWD typically do not recognize the need for this knowledge, leaving care partners potentially isolated in this journey. Developing formal linkages within and across rural organizations will facilitate knowledge exchange and the delivery of cost-effective, quality dementia care. However, additional rural community-based resources are urgently needed to implement these recommendations. This may require a redistribution of resources from acute care to rural community care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».