Acceptability of personal contact interventions to address loneliness for people with dementia: An exploratory mixed methods study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Personal contact interventions involve routine visits with a person or animal to address loneliness. Research supports the promise of these interventions to address loneliness among cognitively intact older adults, but little is known about their use with people with dementia. To assess the acceptability of personal contact interventions for use to address loneliness with older people with dementia, according to formal and informal care providers. Cross-sectional, mixed methods complementarity design. Ontario, Canada A purposive sample of 25 family members, friends, and health care providers of people with dementia. Participants attended a face-to-face interview to discuss the acceptability of personal contact interventions. Participants completed questionnaires to rate acceptability (adapted Treatment Perception and Preference measure). A semi-structured interview followed to discuss the ratings and features of personal contact (with another person or animal) in more detail. The analysis involved descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and conventional content analysis (qualitative data). During the interpretation of the results, the qualitative findings were compared to the quantitative results to provide context and understand participants’ perceptions of intervention acceptability in more depth; these are presented together in the results to demonstrate their distinct and complementary contributions to the findings. Personal contact with a person or animal was rated as effective, logical, suitable, and low risk to address loneliness by over 80% of participants. Participants’ willingness to engage in this type of contact, for example as a visitor or as a facilitator of animal contact, was 72%. Participants emphasized the benefits of personal contact. The findings highlight that individualized, flexible interventions that include appropriate facilitation are needed. Future studies to develop and test personal contact interventions should involve flexible delivery, assess the feasibility and acceptability of these interventions (as in a Phase 2 trial of a complex intervention), and focus on the experiences of people with dementia. Tweetable Abstract: Tailored, routine, and facilitated contact with a person or animal shows promise to address loneliness for people with dementia. What is already known about this topic: • Loneliness is emotionally painful and harms the health and quality of life of those that experience it. • Personal contact interventions refer to routine visits with another person or animal and have been found effective in addressing loneliness among cognitively intact older adults. What this paper adds: • Friends, family members and health care providers of people with dementia view personal contact interventions as logical, suitable and effective to address loneliness of older adults with dementia. • Personal contact interventions are not always easy to implement and do not automatically promote meaningful connection and prevent loneliness for people with dementia. • Strategies to tailor and facilitate personal contact interventions are needed to promote their effectiveness when used with people with dementia.
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 | 0,035 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».