“I Hope That the People Caring for Me Know About Me”: Exploring Person-Centred Care and the Quality of Dementia Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Person-centred care is at the core of high-quality dementia care but people living with dementia are often excluded from quality improvement efforts. We sought to explore person-centred care and quality of care from the perspectives of persons living with dementia in the community and their care partners. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive approach with in-person, semi-structured interviews with 17 participants (9 persons living with dementia and 8 care partners) from Ontario, Canada. Results: Participants report that person-centred care is essential to the quality of dementia care. Three themes were identified that describe connections between person-centred care and quality of care: 1) "I hope that the people looking after me know about me", 2) "I just like to understand [what's happening] as we go down the road", and 3) "But the doctor doesn't even know all the resources that are available." Participants perceived that quality indicators over-emphasized technical/medical aspects of care and do not entirely capture quality of care. Conclusions: Persons living with dementia and their care partners provide important insights into person-centredness and quality of care. Their perspectives on "quality" may differ from clinicians and researchers. Research is needed to better integrate their perspectives in quality improvement and person-centred 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".