Cultural Understandings of Dementia in Indigenous Peoples: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les démences liées à l'âge constituent un problème de santé important au Canada, en particulier chez les communautés autochtones, où les taux de démences surpassent d'environ 34 % ceux retrouvés dans la population canadienne. Cette étude présente une synthèse des données qualitatives tirées des articles traitant de la compréhension culturelle des démences chez les peuples autochtones du Canada. Les résultats principaux suggèrent que peu de recherches ont été effectuées dans ce domaine, en particulier chez les Inuits et les Métis, malgré une progression de l'exploration de ce sujet au Canada. La synthèse de la littérature a révélé que la démence est perçue comme une partie naturelle du cycle de vie par de nombreux Autochtones. Bien que les modèles communautaires et informels de soins soulèvent d'importants défis pour les aidants naturels, ils sont régulièrement appliqués. Cette synthèse sera utile pour les organismes et les prestataires de soins de santé qui recherchent des approches appropriées pour répondre aux besoins des patients et des familles autochtones aux prises avec la démence. Age-related dementias present a significant health concern in Canada, particularly for Indigenous communities, in which rates of dementia are estimated to be 34 per cent higher than in the general Canadian population. This article reports on a qualitative evidence synthesis of available literature concerning cultural understandings of dementia in Indigenous peoples in Canada. Key findings suggest that although exploration of this topic is on the rise in Canada, there remains a paucity of research on this topic, particularly among the Inuit and Métis. The synthesis of the literature found that dementia is viewed as a natural part of the life cycle by many Indigenous people; and although this presents significant challenges for caregivers, informal and community models of care are routinely practiced. This synthesis will be useful for health care providers and organizations that are searching for appropriate approaches to respond to the needs of Indigenous patients and families experiencing 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 | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".