Awareness and Attitudes of South Asian Family Caregivers in Dementia Care in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored awareness and the attitudes of South Asian Bangladeshi family caregivers toward dementia care. The study included 45 family caregivers (>55 years) purposively for the face-to-face interviews between February and March 2020 in Toronto, Ontario. The study used semi-structured questions and applied thematic content analysis. Three main themes emerged related to dementia: a) caregivers' awareness of dementia, b: awareness of prevention and treatment and needs for dementia care, and c) caregivers' attitudes towards dementia. Many caregivers defined dementia as memory loss and forgetfulness. They also perceived anxiety, depression, and aging were risk factors for dementia, and dementia was an unpreventable and incurable disease. Moreover, many were unaware of the appropriate health providers for diagnosing and managing dementia and of non-pharmacological care for dementia. The caregivers perceived dementia as a shameful disease, and they would not go for a diagnosis even if they had risks for dementia and would hide their dementia after diagnosis. Many did not want to be a caregiver for a person with dementia in the family. Many caregivers confessed that training was essential to improve their knowledge about dementia. There was a lack of knowledge about dementia, its prevention, and treatments among South Asian Bangladeshi family caregivers. Dementia was associated with shame, and they had less interest in caring for the person with dementia. For the purpose of enhancing awareness, lowering stigma, and involving people in dementia care, educational instruction in their native tongue is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".