Community‐based dementia care re‐defined: Lessons from Iceland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of families caring for persons with dementia living at home often reflect feelings of being forgotten and abandoned by the authorities to shoulder the responsibility for care-giving. This has increased interest in how formal services can better support these families. This article analyses how health and social care professionals envision the needs of families of persons with dementia living in the community. It also describes the contributions of the formal care system to these families. The study design was qualitative. It involved interviews with professionals (N = 20), field observations from the settings where they worked, and public documents addressing care-giving for people with dementia. Data were analysed using the framework method. The findings reflected how those providing services to persons experiencing cognitive changes mainly understood the services as specialised. They focused on the diagnosis and treatment of the individual with dementia. They considered other aspects of care, such as attending to practical issues of daily life, to be a private matter, for which the family was responsible. In later stages of dementia, specialised day programs become available, offering rehabilitation to motivate positive daily living-for both the person experiencing dementia and family-centred supporters. Professionals in the field described primary care, community-based healthcare and home care services as poorly equipped to support these families. Participants acknowledged that families were often under a lot of stress and might need more support earlier in the illness. However, they saw themselves as powerless. Towards the end of the data collection, services were being re-designed to emphasise the role of primary care. In light of its holistic and family-centred approach, primary care may be well placed to integrate relational understanding of living with dementia and specialised knowledge of dementia treatment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".