A Scoping Review of Care Trajectories across Multiple Settings for Persons with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple transitions across care settings can be disruptive for older adults with dementia and their care partners, and can lead to fragmented care with adverse outcomes. This scoping review was conducted to identify and classify care trajectories across multiple settings for people with dementia, and to understand the prevalence of multiple transitions and associated factors at the individual and organizational levels. Searches of three databases, limited to peer-reviewed studies published between 2007 and 2017, provided 33 articles for inclusion. We identified 26 distinct care trajectories. Common trajectories involved hospital readmission or discharge from hospital to long-term care. Factors associated with transitions were identified mainly at the level of demographic and medical characteristics. Findings suggest a need for investing in stronger community-based systems of care that may reduce transitions. Further research is recommended to address knowledge gaps about complex and longitudinal care trajectories and trajectories experienced by sub-populations of people living with dementia.
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 | 0.021 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".