Factors that Affect Quality of Life from the Perspective of People with Dementia: A Metasynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".