Iatrogenesis in the Context of Residential Dementia Care: A Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This concept analysis aims to explore iatrogenesis within the context of residential dementia care and to distinguish this phenomenon from similar phenomena, such as abuse and inadvertent harm. Research Design and Methods: Walker and Avant's method for concept analysis was used to define critical attributes of iatrogenesis within residential dementia care, and to explore antecedents and consequences of its occurrence. A review of the literature about iatrogenesis in the context of residential dementia was conducted across 4 electronic databases. Texts about iatrogenesis in surgery, medicine, social work, psychology, and other relevant disciplines were also reviewed to provide additional context for the concept. Results: Iatrogenesis takes a unique form in residential dementia care. The final definition of the concept proposed in this article is habituated, forceful, hands-on care provided to residents who exhibit responsive behaviors that result in emotional, physical, spiritual, social harm, and/or gradual functional decline, that is provided with the intention of supporting the resident's safety and dignity. Discussion and Implications: The definition of iatrogenesis proposed in this article is an initial step toward developing evidence-based practice for the provision of nonconsensual assistance in residential dementia care. A theoretical definition like the one proposed in this article may serve as a starting point for the operationalization of the concept, which would promote future empirical research into staff and residents' experiences of health care-inflicted harms in this context. Theoretically, it contributes to critical conversations about the narratives, myths, and misperceptions that facilitate the provision of nonconsensual care.
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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".