Help-seeking Response to Subjective Memory Complaints in Older Adults: Toward a Conceptual Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Subjective memory complaint is a term used to refer older adults who report memory problems. Extensive literature exists on its etiology and impact on long-term cognitive decline, and some physicians consider it important in the early detection of dementia. Despite the salient features reported by both patients and clinicians, few people seek formal help for this complaint, and little research has investigated the underlying reasons for this. The current study explored beliefs, attitudes, and help-seeking behaviors. DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative study was carried out comprising of 18 face-to-face in-depth interviews. The primary aim was to compare and contrast experiences between people, who sought formal help (n = 9), recruited from a memory service and those who did not seek formal help (n = 9) recruited from a screened community population. RESULTS: The need for both to describe the experiences of an unexplored group and to develop a conceptual help-seeking model prompted the use of thematic framework analysis. Three themes were identified as facilitators and barriers to formal health service use: (a) concern, (b) causation, and (c) perceptions of general practitioner. We identified two further key areas central to shaping help-seeking responses: (a) informal help seeking and (b) alternative pathways to care. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that there is a potential for modifying beliefs and attitudes towards help seeking and can inform the development of services and policy to facilitate help seeking and target and provide improved care or treatment when formal help is sought.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".