MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2411812122 · doi:10.22605/rrh2747

Rural and remote dementia care challenges and needs: perspectives of formal and informal care providers residing in Saskatchewan, Canada

2014· article· en· W2411812122 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Vanina Dal Bello‐Haas, Allison Cammer, Debra Morgan, Norma J. Stewart, Julie Kosteniuk

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of SaskatchewanMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThematic analysisReferralNursingDementiaContext (archaeology)Health careNeeds assessmentMedicineService providerFamily medicinePsychologyQualitative researchService (business)SociologyBusinessGeographyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rural and remote settings pose particular healthcare and service delivery challenges. Providing appropriate care and support for individuals with dementia and their families living in these communities is especially difficult, and can only be accomplished when the needs of care providers and the context and complexity of care provision are understood. This paper describes formal and informal caregivers' perceptions of the challenges and needs in providing care and support for individuals with dementia living in rural and remote areas of Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: A mixed-methods exploratory approach was used to examine caregivers' needs. This research was a component of a broader process evaluation designed to inform the initial and ongoing development of a community-based participatory research program in rural dementia care, which included the development of the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic (RRMC). Four approaches were used for data collection and analyses: (1) thematic analysis of consultation meetings with rural healthcare providers: documented discussions from consultation meetings that occurred in 2003-2004 with rural physicians and healthcare providers regarding plans for a new RRMC were analysed thematically; (2) telephone and mail questionnaires: consultation meeting participants completed a subsequent telephone or mail questionnaire (2003-2004) that was analysed descriptively; (3) thematic analysis of referral letters to the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic: physician referral letters over a five-year period (2003-2008) were analysed descriptively and thematically; and (4) examination of family caregiver satisfaction: four specific baseline questionnaire questions completed by family caregivers (2007-2010) were analysed descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Both physician and non-physician healthcare providers identified increased facilities and care programs as needs. Physicians were much more likely than other providers to report available support services for patients and families as adequate. Non-physician providers identified improved services, better coordination of services, travel and travel burden related needs, and staff training and education needs as priorities. Physician needs, as determined via referral letters, included confirmation of diagnosis or treatment, request for further management suggestions, patient or family request, and consultation regarding difficult cases. One-third of informal caregivers expressed not being satisfied with the care received prior to the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic assessment visit, and identified lack of diagnosis and long wait times for services as key issues. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering services and providing care and support for individuals with dementia living in rural and remote communities are especially challenging. The need for increased extent of services was a commonality among formal and informal caregivers. Primary care physicians may seek confirmation of their diagnosis or may need assistance when dealing with difficult aspects of care, as identified by referral letters. Differences between the needs identified via referral letters and questionnaire responses of physicians may be a reflection of the rural or remote context of care provision. Informal caregiver needs were more aligned with non-physician healthcare providers with respect to the need for improved access to additional healthcare professionals and services. The findings have implications for regional policy development that addresses human and other resource shortages.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,279

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0180,003
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations51
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRural and Remote HealthMême sujetDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchTravaux en français237 207