Identifying dementia care needs of family physicians, people living with dementia, and care partners in Canada: Results of a national survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background There is consensus that timely detection, diagnosis and ongoing care of people with dementia is primarily the responsibility of family physicians in Canada. Yet evidence indicates low to moderate diagnosis rates and significant challenges in management of dementia. With the growing number of Canadians living with dementia, there is an increasing need to develop effective practice tools for family physicians and to understand the needs of people living with dementia and their caregivers. This nationwide study was conducted to identify the gaps in tools currently being used, and to identify the domains of care that people with lived experience of dementia and their caregivers feel are being done well, and those that require improvement by their family physician. Method Three nationwide surveys were distributed to target audiences: the 39‐item Dementia Care Needs Assessment Survey for family physicians, the 35‐item Dementia Journey Survey: Caregiver Experience for caregivers, and the 33‐item Dementia Journey Survey: Living with Dementia Experience for persons living with dementia. Survey questions were both multiple choice and open‐ended. Descriptive analyses were conducted on closed‐ended survey questions. Qualitative analyses of open‐ended questions were both inductive, based on observed patterns, and deductive, based on the study objectives. Result The surveys received 288 physician, 78 people with dementia, and 485 care partner responses. Preliminary analysis indicates consensus between physicians, people with dementia, and care partners on 15 of 22 barriers to diagnosis and care. Barriers highlighted included gaps in education and support, community resources, and access to specialists, as well as the need for improved communication around care and diagnosis. A further 4 themes were highlighted by physicians and 3 themes by people with dementia that did not overlap, indicating divergent needs. 24.7% of physicians reported using practice tools for dementia care, 10% of whom use only 1 tool for all aspects. Conclusion Optimal primary care is a cornerstone of a comprehensive approach to supporting people with dementia and their care partners. Identifying gaps in knowledge and tools to support practice and developing new educational programs that are aligned with the needs of people with dementia are vital to improve primary dementia 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 | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».