Experiences of caregivers of community-dwelling older persons with moderate to advanced dementia in adapting the Namaste Care program: a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally many older persons with dementia are living at home to maintain independence within the community. As older persons with dementia transition from early to moderate or advanced stages of dementia they require more support from family members and friends to complete their daily activities. Family and friend caregivers, however, often report a lack of preparation for their caregiving role. There are few psychosocial programs that can be delivered by caregivers of community-dwelling older persons with moderate to advanced dementia. Namaste Care is a psychosocial intervention, predominantly used in long-term care, to improve the quality of life of persons with advanced dementia. Namaste Care provides multisensory stimulation for persons with dementia through meaningful activities such as music, massage, aromatherapy, and nutrition. There have been limited attempts at adapting Namaste Care for use by caregivers in the community.There is a need to involve caregivers in adapting programs and understanding their experiences in research involvement so that strategies can be put in place for a positive experience. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of caregivers who participated in workshop sessions to adapt Namaste Care for community-dwelling older persons with moderate to advanced dementia. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. Six caregivers residing in Ontario, Canada attended virtual workshop sessions (i.e., by phone or videoconference) that were guided by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Patient Engagement Framework. Caregivers completed individual post-workshop interviews. Experiential thematic analysis was used to analyze interviews and post-interview researcher notes. RESULTS: Key findings were that caregivers had a positive experience in adapting Namaste Care by learning how to improve their caregiving skills and being supported to engage in research through multiple facilitators such as flexible scheduling and an inclusive and respectful environment. Having designated time for discussions between caregivers was perceived as important to forming partnerships within the group to support co-creation of knowledge. CONCLUSION: Findings support the need to improve caregiver research engagement processes by ensuring that caregivers can benefit through learning opportunities and discussions and empowering caregivers to value their contributions in adapting interventions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".