Influence of perspectives on user adoption of wander-management strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty-percent of Canadians with dementia will wander and become lost. Strategies, such as wall murals that camouflage doors, and locator devices, offer proactive options for keeping persons with dementia who wander safer. Information that describes available strategies to mitigate this issue is diverse and inconsistent, creating challenges for caregivers and persons living with dementia when choosing helpful strategies. This project aimed to describe the spectrum of risks and risk mitigation strategies associated with dementia-related wandering. Thirty-eight phone interviews from across Canada were conducted with stakeholders including persons with dementia, paid and family caregivers, health professionals, law enforcement, and Alzheimer societies. Interviewees were asked about strategies that they have used to manage dementia-related wandering, and how their perceptions of risk, culture, stigma and geographical location may influence strategy adoption. Overall, a wide range of high- and low-tech solutions were used or suggested by participants, and factors such as risk, culture, geography and stigma were considered essential elements to successful adoption of these strategies. Results from this study highlight the need for unique combinations of strategies based on the type of stakeholder and influencing factors involved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".