Peer support for people living with rare or young onset dementia: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this integrative review was to identify and synthesize the literature on peer support interventions for people living with or caring for someone with a rare or young onset dementia. DESIGN: A literature search of articles was performed using the Nipissing University Primo search system, a central index that enables simultaneous searches across databases which included MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Cochrane Library. RESULTS: The eleven papers that met the inclusion criteria spanned eighteen years and from five countries. Studies reported on peer support programs that were either hospital-based (n = 6) or community-based (n = 4), and were predominantly led by disciplines in the health sciences. Only one study did not involve delivering services. There was a range of methodological quality within the studies included in the review. Further analysis and synthesis led to the identification of three overarching peer support themes. These included: (1) peers as necessarily part of social support interventions; (2) a theoretical portmanteau; and (3) dementia spaces and relationality. CONCLUSION: Consistent with a much larger body of work examining peer involvement in social interventions, this review reinforced the valuable contribution of peers. A full understanding of the mechanisms of change was not achieved. Notwithstanding, the issue of studies neglecting to sufficiently conceptualize and describe interventions is an important one - drawing attention to the need to continue to explore varied delivery, including co-produced models, and more effective evaluation strategies to inform the dementia care sector.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 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".