INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE STIGMA OF DEMENTIA: FINDINGS FROM A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there is significant stigma attached to dementia, there is a paucity of knowledge on stigma reduction interventions. Guided by a strength-based approach, this presentation consists of two objectives: 1) to identify the literature on interventions to reduce dementia-related stigma; and 2) to recognize the strength-based components of existing anti-stigma interventions. A five-stage scoping review process was used to examine peer-reviewed literature of anti-stigma interventions of dementia from 2008 to 2018. From 744 initial records, 21 articles matched our inclusion criteria and were reviewed. A stigma reduction framework was used for classifying interventions: education (to dispel myths with accurate information), contact (to provide interaction with people with dementia), mixed (education and contact interventions), and protest (to challenge negative attitudes of dementia). A range of education, contact, and mixed interventions were identified. Strength-based components of education interventions included using: facts to dispel myths, multiple mediums to support dementia information, and culturally-informed strategies for specific audiences. Key components of contact and mixed interventions included: showcasing the achievements of people with dementia, relationship-building, and engaging in purposeful learning. Findings from this study can help to inform future interventions to reduce stigma and improve the quality of life for people affected by 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".