MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210403729 · doi:10.1002/alz.052186

Impact of COVID‐19 on family care partners of persons with dementia in long‐term care settings in Canada: Not a ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ story

2021· article· en· W4210403729 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carrie McAiney, Jennifer Boger, Emma Conway, Melissa Koch, Ron Beleno, Véronique Boscart, Kate Dupuis, Sherry L. Dupuis, Heather Keller, Jane Kuepfer, Linda Lee, Kimberly J. Lopez, Margaret C. McKinnon, Linda Sheiban Taucar

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonCentre for Family MedicineUniversity of WaterlooSheridan CollegeConestoga CollegeMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternSocial distanceDementiaThematic analysisPsychologyPhoneLong-term careDistancingQualitative researchPandemicGerontologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Respite careNursingMedicineSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background COVID‐19 has been devastating for older adults, particularly residents in long‐term care/retirement (LTC) homes. In an effort to curb the transmission of COVID‐19, public health measures have been put in place in many LTC homes, including mask wearing, physical distancing, and visitor restrictions. As the pandemic passes the one‐year mark, we are starting to understand the profound impacts of COVID‐19 and the corresponding public health measures on persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their family care partners (CPs). This research is part of a larger study exploring the impact of COVID‐19 on the wellbeing and social connections of PLWD and CPs. In this presentation, findings from qualitative interviews conducted with CPs of PLWD in LTC homes are shared. Methods The overall study used an intrinsic case study design, involving survey and interview data. Following completion of a survey, participants were invited to participate in an in‐depth qualitative interview. Interviews were conducted by phone or online, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Eighteen CPs were interviewed. The impact of visitor restrictions varied between LTC homes and changed over the course of the pandemic, which was extremely challenging for CPs. At homes with visitor restrictions, the inability to visit family members with dementia was described as stressful, unfair, and frustrating. CPs stressed the importance of being able to visit their relatives, and ensuring their family members had regular social interaction to support their physical, social and emotional wellbeing. Even when CPs could visit, masks and physical distancing made communication with some PLWD challenging. Visitor policies also influenced perceptions of care. Some CPs felt that the needs of their family members with dementia were being met by the home, while others weren’t sure because CPs weren’t in the homes to assist staff and provide support to their family members with dementia. Conclusion While COVID‐19 and the pandemic restrictions have been difficult for all CPs of persons with dementia in LTC, for some it has been agonizing. Understanding these varied experiences can help inform the development of individually‐tailored resources to better support the wellbeing of CPs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0360.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→