A scoping review of COVID-19 experiences of people living with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Compared with the general population, people living with dementia have been unequivocally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a paucity of knowledge on the COVID-19 impact on people with dementia and their care partners. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize the existing literature on the COVID-19 experiences of people with dementia and their care partners. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched five electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science) and an online search engine (Google Scholar). Inclusion criteria consisted of English-language articles focusing on the COVID-19 experiences of people with dementia and their care partners. SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one articles met our inclusion criteria: six letters to the editor, seven commentaries, and eight original research studies. In the literature, five main themes were identified: (i) care partner fatigue and burnout; (ii) lack of access to services and supports; (iii) worsening neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive function; (iv) coping with COVID-19; and (v) the need for more evidence-informed research. Factors such as living alone, having advanced dementia, and the length of confinement were found to exacerbate the impact of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Urgent action is needed to support people living with dementia and their care partners in the pandemic. With little access to supports and services, people with dementia and their care partners are currently at a point of crisis. Collaboration and more evidence-informed research are critical to reducing mortality and supporting people with dementia during the pandemic.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".