MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896272240 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2955

O4‐08‐05: PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS OF OLDER AFRICAN AMERICANS LIVING ALONE WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: AN IN‐DEPTH PERSPECTIVE

2018· article· en· W2896272240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Portacolone, Kenneth E. Covinsky, Robert Rubinstein, Jessica Ortez-Alfaro, Jodi Halpern, Julene K. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyDementiaFieldnotesCognitionQualitative researchActivities of daily livingCognitive impairmentMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicinePsychologyDiseaseEthnographyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older African Americans are twice as likely as Whites to have cognitive impairment. In addition, one third of older adults with cognitive impairment live alone in the United States, but there is limited knowledge about the priorities and concerns of older African Americans living alone. This gap in knowledge is concerning considering that 28% of older African Americans live alone. To address this gap, we used qualitative methods to better understand, in depth, the lived experience of older African Americans with cognitive impairment living alone. Ethnographic interviews and participant observation were used to elicit priorities and concerns of older African Americans living alone with cognitive impairment. Inclusion criteria included living alone, ability to provide consent, and a medical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, or mild cognitive impairment or ≤24 in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Participants were recruited through healthcare and community organizations in Northern California. Using a qualitative content analysis approach, interview transcripts and fieldnotes were analyzed to identify codes and themes for participants’ priorities and concerns. Twenty older adults (12 with a MoCA score ≤24, 6 with a diagnosis of MCI, 2 with a diagnosis of dementia) were interviewed an average of 4 times per person for a total of 79 interviews. With regard to priorities, three themes emerged: 1) Attending social activities (e.g., going to church, attending study groups, interacting with family members/friends); 2) Receiving better medical care (e.g., more invested primary care physicians, better care coordination), and; 3) Establishing social boundaries. With regard to concerns, four themes emerged: 1) Self-managing multiple chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, heart disease); 2) Limited support from family members and friends; 3) Difficulty managing financial affairs (e.g., credit card debt, fraud, eviction), and; 4) Limited understanding of their cognitive impairment. Findings underscore the need for tailored services for African Americans living alone with cognitive impairment to receive better medical care, as well as support with their financial affairs and more information about their cognitive impairment while remaining engaged in their communities. Future research is needed to identify specific priorities and concerns related to race.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→