A qualitative systematic review of experiences of persons with dementia regarding transition to long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current qualitative systematic review identified and examined critically the literature on how persons with dementia experience transitions to long-term care. Results are intended to help develop guidelines for future care and research. METHOD: A search was conducted of OvidSP, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ProQuest, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AgeLine and Informit databases. In total, 4705 articles were reviewed (published 1954-2018). A textual narrative approach was used to synthesise the findings of the included articles. RESULTS: Seven articles met inclusion criteria (five using data collected from interviews with persons with dementia and two using reports from a proxy). Overall, the findings showed that transition to long-term care possesses varied meanings for persons with dementia, is often not the decision of the persons with dementia, and is a process throughout which social connections remain important. DISCUSSION: Accounts of the experiences of persons with dementia regarding transitions from community to long-term care show that they and their families should be supported: with respect to their individual contexts, to share the positives and negatives of the transition experiences, to make decisions together, and to maintain old and establish new social connections.
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 | 0.040 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".