Toward integrated services for dementia: a formal carer perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Policy has identified the need for integrated dementia services for older people. However, the role of the formal carer within an integrated framework of service delivery has not been well articulated in practice. The aim of this paper is to understand the experiences of formal carers working with the context of an integrated dementia service by exploring findings from a research‐based evaluation. Design/methodology/approach The evaluation captured the experiences of formal carers working within the service via observations, semi‐structured interviews and focus groups. Findings Working with an integrated service brings about individual, social and organisational challenges to the role of the formal carer, in terms of: delivering flexibility and responsiveness, providing continuity of care, ensuring cross‐organisational working and acquiring skills, knowledge and expertise. Originality/value To facilitate the successful delivery of integrated care, the emerging role of the formal carer needs to be more clearly articulated and supported within a service context.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it