Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is increasing interest in developing dementia supportive communities worldwide. However, as the articles featuring in this issue of Innovative Practice illustrate, these principles need to be integrated across the whole of the health and care systems. How this is achieved will depend on a number of local factors. The first article by Annabel Chalk and Sean Page describes the development of Dementia RED (Respect Empathy Dignity), an example from North Wales based on the twin concepts of people living with dementia as citizens in their community and developing ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’ approaches to dementia supportive communities. As the authors explain, North Wales is a predominantly rural region and so strategies aimed at achieving dementia friendly communities need to take account of this. For example, one of the developments they describe involves a road show in which members of the multi disciplinary team undertaking outreach visits to two different localities. The article shares interesting parallels with the account of developments in rural Ontario reported by Wiersma and Denton (2016). As Mills and colleagues (2014) have reported, the Department of Health in England has introduced financial incentives through the Dementia CQUIN to improve the identification of people with possible dementia in acute hospital settings. However, for this policy to be effective, it requires the involvement of junior doctors who are largely responsible for undertaking the initial assessments of people admitted to acute hospitals. In the second article, Ian Wilkinson and colleagues describe the process of establishing a team of ‘dementia champions’ in a district general hospital in London. The doctors who volunteered to undertake this role had a number of motivations for taking part, including personal experience of family member with dementia and wanting to share the enthusiasm of their peers who were already involved. Although being a dementia champion involved additional work, those who were involved found it both professionally and personally rewarding. The final article describes the development of a Living Well with Dementia (LivDem) peer support group for people affected by dementia in a primary care setting. Although some people with dementia access per support groups through memory clinics, only a proportion of people with dementia with dementia are seen by memory clinics (Hodge and Hailey, 2015). Therefore, in order not to exclude people from a potentially helpful intervention, peer support groups need to be accessible to people through their general practitioner or
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,007 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».