MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905243151 · doi:10.1111/jocn.14746

Dementia‐friendly community initiatives: An integrative review

2018· review· en· W2905243151 on OpenAlex
Kay Shannon, Kasia Bail, Stephen Neville

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCINAHLInclusion (mineral)ChecklistMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyNursingGerontologyPsychological interventionDiseasePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To synthesise international research conducted on dementia-friendly community initiatives. BACKGROUND: The number of people living with dementia is increasing as a result of population ageing. Impairments related to neurological changes, together with environmental challenges, result in disability for people who have dementia. Led by the World Health Organization and Alzheimer's Disease International, initiatives have been undertaken internationally to promote social inclusion for people who have dementia. Communities where people with dementia are able to remain socially included are known as dementia-friendly communities. DESIGN: An integrative review of the literature. METHODS: Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus via Ebsco databases were searched for relevant articles. The PRISMA framework guided the article search and screening; reporting is in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight eligible studies were identified. The methodological quality of the eligible studies was evaluated using the MMAT checklist. The matrix method was used to extract, abstract and analyse the data. RESULTS: Of the eight studies reviewed, five were from the UK and one each from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Four major concepts were identified in the literature, and these are characteristics of dementia-friendly communities, facilitators and barriers to community engagement for people with dementia, strategies for developing dementia-friendly communities and challenges encountered when developing dementia-friendly communities. CONCLUSION: People with dementia are at the centre of dementia-friendly initiatives, and these foster social inclusion. Collaborations and partnerships enhance development of dementia-friendly communities; however, lack of resources and difficulty ensuring representation of marginalised groups provide challenges. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: An understanding of the impact of marginalisation and inequality on community participation for people with dementia is important for practitioners, enabling them to support those people. Senior nurses with this understanding can ensure services are able to meet the needs of a growing population with dementia.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.587
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