How Dementia Caregivers Make Health Service Decisions: A Scoping Review and Implications for Grounded Theory Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the grounded theory literature surrounding the health care decisions of dementia caregivers and to evaluate the rigor of these studies according to methodological guidelines. This scoping review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework. Articles were then evaluated against key principals of grounded theory. Results from five included articles show that while researchers label their study as grounded theory, some aspects of the methodological principles do not get adhered to. We draw lessons from these shortcomings to make recommendations for future research. Exploration of the shortcomings of grounded theory research could offer suggestions for improving the overall methodological rigor in dementia caregiving research, which may enhance the credibility of the findings. Grounded theory methodologies in dementia caregiving research could move findings from qualitative descriptions to explanations of processes, such as substitute decision-making for dementia caregivers.
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 | 0.122 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".