MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411812122 · doi:10.22605/rrh2747

Rural and remote dementia care challenges and needs: perspectives of formal and informal care providers residing in Saskatchewan, Canada

2014· article· en· W2411812122 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanina Dal Bello‐Haas, Allison Cammer, Debra Morgan, Norma J. Stewart, Julie Kosteniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisReferralNursingDementiaContext (archaeology)Health careNeeds assessmentMedicineService providerFamily medicinePsychologyQualitative researchService (business)SociologyBusinessGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rural and remote settings pose particular healthcare and service delivery challenges. Providing appropriate care and support for individuals with dementia and their families living in these communities is especially difficult, and can only be accomplished when the needs of care providers and the context and complexity of care provision are understood. This paper describes formal and informal caregivers' perceptions of the challenges and needs in providing care and support for individuals with dementia living in rural and remote areas of Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: A mixed-methods exploratory approach was used to examine caregivers' needs. This research was a component of a broader process evaluation designed to inform the initial and ongoing development of a community-based participatory research program in rural dementia care, which included the development of the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic (RRMC). Four approaches were used for data collection and analyses: (1) thematic analysis of consultation meetings with rural healthcare providers: documented discussions from consultation meetings that occurred in 2003-2004 with rural physicians and healthcare providers regarding plans for a new RRMC were analysed thematically; (2) telephone and mail questionnaires: consultation meeting participants completed a subsequent telephone or mail questionnaire (2003-2004) that was analysed descriptively; (3) thematic analysis of referral letters to the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic: physician referral letters over a five-year period (2003-2008) were analysed descriptively and thematically; and (4) examination of family caregiver satisfaction: four specific baseline questionnaire questions completed by family caregivers (2007-2010) were analysed descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Both physician and non-physician healthcare providers identified increased facilities and care programs as needs. Physicians were much more likely than other providers to report available support services for patients and families as adequate. Non-physician providers identified improved services, better coordination of services, travel and travel burden related needs, and staff training and education needs as priorities. Physician needs, as determined via referral letters, included confirmation of diagnosis or treatment, request for further management suggestions, patient or family request, and consultation regarding difficult cases. One-third of informal caregivers expressed not being satisfied with the care received prior to the Rural and Remote Memory Clinic assessment visit, and identified lack of diagnosis and long wait times for services as key issues. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering services and providing care and support for individuals with dementia living in rural and remote communities are especially challenging. The need for increased extent of services was a commonality among formal and informal caregivers. Primary care physicians may seek confirmation of their diagnosis or may need assistance when dealing with difficult aspects of care, as identified by referral letters. Differences between the needs identified via referral letters and questionnaire responses of physicians may be a reflection of the rural or remote context of care provision. Informal caregiver needs were more aligned with non-physician healthcare providers with respect to the need for improved access to additional healthcare professionals and services. The findings have implications for regional policy development that addresses human and other resource shortages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207