Subjective quality of life of those 65 years and older experiencing dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To describe how people experiencing dementia define quality of life and how this may be supported. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive component of mixed methods cross-sectional study. SETTING: Western Canadian community (4-h weekly care minimum), supportive housing (24-h support/supervision), personal care homes (24-h nursing). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty-six persons aged 65+ experiencing dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Semi-structured interview questions. Rating of meeting life's goals. RESULTS: Participants characterised quality of life as: freedom, independence, having basic needs met, physical health, engagement in meaningful activities and tranquility. A need for self-determination/choice was evidenced across all domains. Increased access to skilled nursing care, support for meaningful engagement with family and meeting life's goals were endorsed as adding most to quality of life; 43% reported meeting all life's major goals. CONCLUSION: People experiencing dementia may have better quality of life when choice/self-determination is supported. Enhancements in care environment, independence, engagement and meeting of life's goals merit urgent attention.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".