Defining empowerment for older people living with dementia from multiple perspectives: A qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The concept of empowerment seems promising for people living with dementia to live their life as they want to for as long as possible. Therefore, this study aimed to explore what the concept of empowerment means and includes for people living with dementia from the perspectives of people living with dementia themselves, their informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Qualitative research using focus group discussions and individual interviews with people living with dementia (n = 15), informal caregivers (n = 16) and healthcare professionals (n = 46) to explore perspectives on empowerment. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, and separately analyzed by two researchers using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified as important aspects of empowerment: (1) having a sense of personal identity, (2) having a sense of choice and control, (3) having a sense of usefulness and being needed, and (4) retaining a sense of worth. Based on these themes, a conceptual framework of empowerment for older people living with dementia was developed. Empowerment takes place within the person living with dementia, but is achieved through interaction with their environment. The four themes seem to be important both at home and in nursing homes, and in different stages of dementia. However, practical detailing of support differed. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our empowerment framework may provide a basis for developing interventions to empower people living with dementia and to strengthen (in)formal caregivers in this empowerment process. Support for people living with dementia must be adjusted to their personal situation and individual capabilities.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it