Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of research within the Bangladeshi community that is capable of explaining and predicting the experiences and concerns of Bangladeshi family carers providing care for their relatives with dementia. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of Bangladeshi family carers' knowledge and day-to-day experiences living in England. METHODS: This is a qualitative study involving semistructured face-to-face interviews with six Bangladeshi family carers living in London and Portsmouth. Interviews were recorded with the consent and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed by using NVivo software, and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: This paper explores that most carers have a lack of knowledge and awareness of the symptoms of dementia. The results of this study are in contrast to previous studies, where South Asian carers perceived dementia as being possessed by evil spirits or God's punishment for previous life's sins; this study reveals that Bangladeshi family carers believed dementia was a medical condition. Unlike earlier South Asian studies, however, all family carers in this study also believed that there was no stigma attached to dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is warranted to investigate the religious beliefs, familism, and interpersonal motives as theoretical perspectives to explain how Bangladeshi family carers negotiate and construct their caregiving roles for their relatives 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".