Pathways to diagnosis: exploring the experiences of problem recognition and obtaining a dementia diagnosis among Anglo-Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing evidence suggests that early diagnosis and management of dementia-related symptoms may improve the quality of life for patients and their families. However, individuals may wait from 1-3 years from the onset of symptoms before receiving a diagnosis. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of problem recognition, and the process of obtaining a diagnosis among individuals with early-stage dementia and their primary carers. From 2006-2009, six Anglo-Canadians with dementia and seven of their carers were recruited from the Alzheimer's Society of Calgary to participate in semi-structured interviews. Using an inductive, thematic approach to the analysis, five major themes were identified: becoming aware of memory problems, attributing meanings to symptoms, initiating help-seeking, acknowledging the severity of cognitive changes and finally obtaining a definitive diagnosis. Individuals with dementia reported noticing memory difficulties earlier than their carers. However, initial symptoms were perceived as ambiguous, and were normalised and attributed to concurrent health problems. The diagnostic process was typically characterised by multiple visits and interactions with health professionals, and a diagnosis was obtained as more severe cognitive deficits emerged. Throughout the diagnostic pathway, carers played dynamic roles. Carers initially served as a source of encouragement to seek help, but they eventually became actively involved over concerns about alternative diagnoses and illness management. A better understanding of the pre-diagnosis period, and the complex interactions between people's beliefs and attributions about symptoms, may elucidate some of the barriers as well as strategies to promote a timelier dementia diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".