Communication in Home Care: The Experiences of Formal Caregivers in Communicating with Persons Living with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is limited literature on formal caregivers’ communication with persons living with dementia (PLWD) in home settings. Most research comes from studies of long-term care home settings or informal home care contexts. Yet, there are expected needs and rising demands for formal caregiver support within home care. The aim of this study was to understand better the lived experiences of personal support workers (PSWs) regarding their communication with PLWD in home settings. A hermeneutic phenomenological approach guided this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 PSW participants. Three major themes were identified through thematic analysis: (1) challenged by dementia-related impairments; (2) valuing communication in care; and (3) home is a personal space. PSWs experienced difficulties in their communication with PLWD despite recognizing the importance of communication in providing optimal home care. This suggests that while PSWs possess good intentions, they do not possess the skills necessary to ensure effective interactions. Dementia-specific education and training are recommended to improve PSWs’ communication skills and to enhance quality of care. Findings highlight further the uniqueness of the personal home space itself on PSWs experiences with communication. Aspects of the home care environment can enable, but also complicate, successful communication between PSWs and PLWD. Consequently, findings also have implications for family members of PLWD and home care employers regarding optimizing practice and improving care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".