Research‐based evaluation of a dementia support program through lived experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Community support programs can improve quality of life for people living with dementia (PLWDs) and their caregivers (CGs). Important to the successful implementation of such programs is close engagement with end‐users to gain a better understanding of their needs. This study describes the perspectives of PLWDs and CGs on the First Link® dementia support program provided by the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia. Method Following a large‐scale survey (N = 1164), semi‐structured interviews were conducted with PLWDs and CGs who access and do not access the First Link® program to explore in greater detail the different needs and themes that emerged from the survey data. The interviews explored: 1) experiences with the program; 2) future planning; 3) meaning of independence; and 4) impact of the program on emotional and physical well‐being. Result A total of 38 participants were interviewed (7 PLWDs, 31 CGs). Participants who found that the First Link® dementia program was helpful pointed to their experiences being validated and feeling that they were not alone in their journey. Knowledge and education were key factors that helped participants manage the impact of dementia. Learning about what dementia is, the experiences of others, strategies on how to manage symptoms, what to plan for in the future, and how to access different services in the community, were tied to increased feelings of confidence and comfort, and decreased stress. In terms of their future, participants expressed that it was important to have legal plans in place (e.g. power of attorney), organize personal finances, as well as prepare to manage their estate (e.g. downsizing), access home care, and transition to long‐term care facilities. Participants provided suggestions for improvement of the First Link® dementia program such as embedding the program into the patient journey, providing more services in remote areas, providing education for HCPs, and increasing awareness of the program. Conclusion By emphasizing the lived experiences and needs of those living with dementia and their caregivers, this work will inform future research‐based program evaluations globally and in turn improve the existing services to support people living with and impacted by dementia.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".