MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134249984 · doi:10.1177/1471301216630889

Editorial: Innovative practice

2016· editorial· en· W2134249984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jo Moriarty

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDignityOutreachNursingParallelsPublic relationsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringLawOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in developing dementia supportive communities worldwide. However, as the articles featuring in this issue of Innovative Practice illustrate, these principles need to be integrated across the whole of the health and care systems. How this is achieved will depend on a number of local factors. The first article by Annabel Chalk and Sean Page describes the development of Dementia RED (Respect Empathy Dignity), an example from North Wales based on the twin concepts of people living with dementia as citizens in their community and developing ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’ approaches to dementia supportive communities. As the authors explain, North Wales is a predominantly rural region and so strategies aimed at achieving dementia friendly communities need to take account of this. For example, one of the developments they describe involves a road show in which members of the multi disciplinary team undertaking outreach visits to two different localities. The article shares interesting parallels with the account of developments in rural Ontario reported by Wiersma and Denton (2016). As Mills and colleagues (2014) have reported, the Department of Health in England has introduced financial incentives through the Dementia CQUIN to improve the identification of people with possible dementia in acute hospital settings. However, for this policy to be effective, it requires the involvement of junior doctors who are largely responsible for undertaking the initial assessments of people admitted to acute hospitals. In the second article, Ian Wilkinson and colleagues describe the process of establishing a team of ‘dementia champions’ in a district general hospital in London. The doctors who volunteered to undertake this role had a number of motivations for taking part, including personal experience of family member with dementia and wanting to share the enthusiasm of their peers who were already involved. Although being a dementia champion involved additional work, those who were involved found it both professionally and personally rewarding. The final article describes the development of a Living Well with Dementia (LivDem) peer support group for people affected by dementia in a primary care setting. Although some people with dementia access per support groups through memory clinics, only a proportion of people with dementia with dementia are seen by memory clinics (Hodge and Hailey, 2015). Therefore, in order not to exclude people from a potentially helpful intervention, peer support groups need to be accessible to people through their general practitioner or

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.007

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.379 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207