‘It's in the eyes’: how family members and care staff understand awareness in people with severe dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we explored how family members and care staff understand awareness in people with severe dementia and what this awareness means to them. METHOD: We conducted four focus groups between 2007 and 2009 in the UK with 11 family members and 12 care staff. Transcripts of the focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A model of awareness emerged in which the perceived level of awareness in the person with dementia was influenced by an interaction between attributes of the person with dementia and the environment, with expressions of awareness being hindered by environmental factors and facilitated through appropriate stimulation. Awareness did fluctuate, and differences in interpretations of awareness were linked to the meaning assigned to particular kinds of responses. For family members, awareness was intrinsically linked to their emotional connection with the person with dementia. For care staff, identifying signs of awareness helped them to do their job and enabled them to feel that they had connected with the person with dementia. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that care staff would benefit from training both on identifying awareness and on providing suitable activities for people with severe dementia. Care staff and family members would also benefit from greater sharing of information about the person with dementia. This could help to enhance quality of life for person with dementia and improve quality of care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".