Assisting people with dementia with their medicines: experiences of family carers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many family carers provide assistance with medicines that is vital for optimal clinical outcomes. Medicines-related tasks are known to contribute to carer burden and stress. This study examined the experiences of family carers when providing medicines-related assistance for a person with dementia, to indicate how services could become more responsive to the specific needs of this group of carers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with family carers and care-recipients identified though a memory clinic in north London and a local Alzheimer's Society. The interview guide, comprising open questions, was informed by previous studies and consultation with stakeholders. Qualitative procedures involving a framework approach were employed in the analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Fourteen interviews with carers and five with care-recipients were conducted. These highlighted the burden and challenges, surrounding medicines-management activities. As well as practical aspects that could be complex, carers were commonly making judgements about the need for and appropriateness of medicines. Although experiences were varied, carers reported difficulties in maintaining supplies, ensuring adherence to regimens and accessing health professionals; and they made some recommendations for service improvements. Carers' difficulty in obtaining information and advice about medicines was compounded by their desire to allow the care-recipient to retain autonomy over their medicines as long as possible. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the distinct needs and problems with regard to medicines-management when caring for a person with dementia. As the prevalence of dementia rises, interventions designed to address these specific aspects of reduce carer-burden should be a priority for health professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".