Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid demographic ageing will soon lead to large increases in the numbers of persons with dementia in developing countries. This study is the first comprehensive assessment of care arrangements for people with dementia in those regions. METHODS: A descriptive and comparative study of dementia care; caregiver characteristics, the nature of care provided, and the practical, psychological (Zarit Burden Interview, General Health Questionnaire) and economic impact upon the caregiver in 24 centres in India, China and South East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. RESULTS: We interviewed 706 persons with dementia, and their caregivers. Most caregivers were women, living with the person with dementia in extended family households. One-quarter to one-half of households included a child. Larger households were associated with lower caregiver strain, where the caregiver was co-resident. However, despite the traditional apparatus of family care, levels of caregiver strain were at least as high as in the developed world. Many had cutback on work to care and faced the additional expense of paid carers and health services. Families from the poorest countries were particularly likely to have used expensive private medical services, and to be spending more than 10% of the per capita GNP on health care. CONCLUSIONS: Older people in developing countries are indivisible from their younger family members. The high levels of family strain identified in this study feed into the cycle of disadvantage and should thus be a concern for policymakers in the developing world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".