Dementia and dignity of identity: A qualitative evidence synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late stages of dementia, individuals rely on others for their wellbeing and this creates an ethical imperative for responsive dementia care. Through a qualitative evidence synthesis of literature on what constitutes responsive dementia care, we identified dignity of identity as a central theme. Dignity of identity is the status each of us holds in relation to others and reflects our past experiences and our aspirations for the future. We did a qualitative evidence synthesis of 10 qualitative studies conducted with a total of 149 research participants, 95 of whom had dementia, and 54 of whom were paid and family member caregivers to people with dementia. Using "new materialism disability studies" as our theoretical framework, we illustrate how environments, both material and discursive, shape the abilities of people with dementia in residential care settings (RSCs) to live well and we use our findings to point to ways forward in dignity of identity-enhancing dementia care practice. Echoing the literature, we observe that people with dementia have the virtual capacity to live with dignity of identity and illustrate how material conditions and discourse influence the transition of dignity of identity in people with dementia from a virtual capacity to an actual capacity and how demonstrated capacity in turn influences material conditions and discourse surrounding care for people with dementia in RSCs. We call for a greater acknowledgement within literature on dignity and dementia of structural barriers to dignity of identity-enhancing care. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us the fatal consequences of insufficient material conditions in RCSs and we hope that on a societal level there is improvement to both the material conditions in RCSs as well as an improvement in discourse about those who live and work in RCSs.
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 | 0.128 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".