Moving beyond patient and client approaches: Mobilizing ‘ <i>authentic partnerships</i> ’ in dementia care, support and services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1940s, Carl Rogers introduced the notion of a client-centred or person-centred approach, originally called the ‘non-directive approach’. Over the past several decades, however, we have lost sight of the true intent behind Roger's relational approach, settling instead on well-intended but often paternalistic approaches that place patients or clients at the centre of care, but rarely, if ever, actively involve them in decision-making. This is no more apparent than in the case of persons living with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias who, due to the stigma and misunderstanding surrounding dementia, are often assumed to lack the capacity to be involved in their own care and the care of others. Drawing on our experience working directly with persons with dementia, family members and professionals, and systematic research on a number of mutual partnership initiatives, the purpose of this paper is to present an alternative approach, one that views persons with dementia as equal partners in the context of dementia care, support and formal services.
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 | 0.052 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".