Dementia Care under COVID-19 and Infectious Disease Pandemic Restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emergency measures including social distancing and program restrictions during COVID-19 has reduced supports for people living with dementia and family/friend caregivers in the community. Consequently, these reductions in dementia services and resources have added to existing challenges and (in)equities for this stigmatized population. The objectives of this study were to identify how community-based resources and services for people with dementia and their caregivers are impacted by public health emergency measures enacted during COVID-19 and other infectious pandemics and secondly, use an intersectional health equity perspective to explore how supports for people and families living with dementia are affected by social determinants of health. A scoping review using JBI methodology was conducted. Academic databases searched included Embase, Medline, CINAHL and PAIS. Grey literature was searched using the CADTH tool. English articles published after 2000 in high-income countries were included. Data was extracted by two reviewers using an adaptation of the Health Equity Impact Assessment tool to explore factors related to health equity. Findings included articles discussing the COVID-19 pandemic (N=15). Most alterations to dementia services included switching to telehealth platforms with some advantages/disadvantages of this method discussed. Limited information on how different populations experienced service changes was identified and more research is needed to address issues of (in)equities for people living with dementia and their caregivers during public health emergencies. Information on how health emergency responses affects dementia services and their users will provide important information on resources for current and future efforts to analyze and assess their impacts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".