Hope and connection: the experience of family caregivers of persons with dementia living in a long term care facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hope is a psychosocial resource that is essential for the psychological, spiritual, and physical well-being of family members caring for persons with dementia. A significant positive relationship has been found between hope and well-being in family caregivers of persons with dementia living in the community. However, the hope experience of family caregivers of persons living with dementia in long-term care (LTC) facilities has not been explored. The purpose of this study was to explore the hope experience of family caregivers of persons with dementia living in a LTC facility. METHODS: Twenty-three open-ended face to face interviews were conducted with 13 family caregivers of residents with dementia in a LTC facility. Family was broadly defined to include relatives and friends. Seven of these participants also reflected on their hope in diaries over a two week period. Interview transcripts and journal texts were analyzed using Thorne's interpretive description approach. RESULTS: The over-arching theme was "hope and connection". Participants lost hope and felt despair when they perceived they were unable to connect with their family member in the LTC facility. They regained their hope when a connection could be made. Several sub-themes were identified including: accepting where we are, living life in the moment, believing in something, standing together, and balancing dual worlds. CONCLUSIONS: Hope was important and essential for family caregivers of persons with dementia residing in a LTC facility. The overarching theme of "hope and connection" underscores the importance of maintaining relationships and connection between family members and the person in LTC. Given the paucity of hope research conducted within this population, the study findings provide a foundation for future research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".