Living alone with dementia: an interpretive phenomenological study with older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study of the meaning of living alone from the perspective of older people with dementia. BACKGROUND: Risks and problems experienced by older women living alone have been investigated mostly through quantitative research. Balancing their safety and autonomy is a serious international community care dilemma. Older people's perspectives have been muted in qualitative research on living alone with dementia. METHOD: Using an interpretive phenomenological approach and van Manen's method, 14 interviews were conducted in Ontario, Canada from January 2004 to April 2005 with eight older women diagnosed with Alzheimer disease or a related dementia. FINDINGS: The theme holding back time expressed the temporal meaning of living alone. Pharmacological treatments represented stored time, offering the opportunity to hold back future dreaded time. Past experience with others with dementia was a context for holding on to now and facing some risks of living alone with memory loss. The women acknowledged the limited time remaining for, and identified endpoints to, living alone. CONCLUSION: Insight into the impact of past experience with others with dementia could inform nursing assessment and advocacy for health/social services that are sensitive to the potential emotional impact of mixing people with varied levels of dementia in the same programme.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".