The needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people living with dementia: a systematic review with thematic synthesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: LGBT + people are disproportionately at an increased risk for developing dementia. Dementia can compound the impact of stigma and social marginalisation experienced by LGBT + people, and is likely to create barriers to accessing healthcare services. Understanding the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia will help support high quality individualised care. The aim of this review is to explore and synthesise the evidence on the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia. METHODS: Systematic review with thematic synthesis. The search strategy combined concepts of gender and sexual minorities, and dementia. MEDLINE Complete, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Academic Search Ultimate were searched until March 2024. Relevant published papers in the English language were included, regardless of design or type. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings were discussed from a queer lens. RESULTS: Out of 1537 initial titles, 16 papers were included. Majority were published in the UK (n = 8), followed by USA (n = 4), Canada (n = 2), and Australia (n = 2). Of 16 papers, two were empirical qualitative studies, one used a subset of qualitative data from a previous study alongside other sources (literature review, reflection, policy) for data analysis, and 13 papers were non-empirical. The experiences primarily focused on actual or anticipated discrimination, and how the lifetime experiences of oppression, trauma, and other stressors can impact on the experience of dementia. Many of the needs captured focused on safety and control in identity disclosure and expression, and access to love, intimacy, and social networks. In addition, maintaining personhood through institutional safety, psychological safety, and attachment through relationships and couplehood were highlighted. Data on preferences were not explicit. CONCLUSION: The robustness of the science is weak regarding the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia. Designing and implementing dementia-related policies through a queer intersectional lens, along with embedded cultural safety education programmes, are needed. Further research that includes the voice of LGBT + people with dementia coupled with healthcare professionals' perspective is needed.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».