MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034648656 · doi:10.1111/jgs.13178

Factors that Affect Quality of Life from the Perspective of People with Dementia: A Metasynthesis

2015· review· en· W2034648656 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hannah M. O’Rourke, Wendy Duggleby, Kimberly D. Fraser, Lauren Jerke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsDementiaMedicineSadnessQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyQualitative researchPerspective (graphical)Affect (linguistics)Social connectednessHappinessPsychologyClinical psychologyNursingSocial psychologyDiseaseSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively and systematically identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative research findings on factors that affect quality of life from the perspective of people with dementia. DESIGN: Systematic review and metasynthesis of primary qualitative studies in published and gray literature that aimed to identify factors that influence quality of life from the perspective of people with dementia. Expert-developed search strategies were applied in nine electronic databases. Reference lists of included articles and literature reviews identified during the search were reviewed. Structured inclusion criteria were applied to screen 5,625 titles and abstracts to identify 11 qualitative studies published from 1975 to April 2012. Two independent reviewers appraised study quality. SETTING: Primary study recruitment sites included long-term care and community-based settings in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, and Japan. PARTICIPANTS: A combined sample of 345 people with mild, moderate, and severe dementia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary studies used interview and focus group methods. Findings from primary studies were synthesized using techniques of taxonomic analysis, constant comparison, and importing concepts. RESULTS: Four factors and the experience of connectedness or disconnectedness within each factor influenced quality of life according to people with dementia. These factors, and the terms that represent connectedness and disconnectedness, were relationships (together vs alone), agency in life today (purposeful vs aimless), wellness perspective (well vs ill), and sense of place (located vs unsettled). Happiness and sadness were key outcomes of good and poor quality of life, respectively. CONCLUSION: The four factors identified potentially modifiable areas to improve quality of life for people with dementia, even in the context of worsening cognitive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.016
Bibliometrics0.0250.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations172
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207