Healthcare professionals' perceived challenges and solutions when providing rehabilitation to persons living with dementia—A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This review aimed to map studies related to healthcare professionals' perceptions and attitudes towards the rehabilitation for persons living with dementia and extract what they perceive are the barriers and solutions. BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation can improve the quality of life and integration of persons living with dementia into society. However, there are several barriers to accessing rehabilitation services. Healthcare professionals are a source of information to understand the challenges and provide solutions to improve these services. DESIGN: Arksey and O' Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 2005 and 19) five-step framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR checklist was used. The PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations) framework was used to identify research and practice recommendations. METHOD: Seven databases including Medline Complete, Academic Search Ultimate, Ageline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Pubmed and Google Scholar were searched. The healthcare professionals' perceived challenges and solutions were categorised using Braun & Clarke (Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2006 and 77) thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen articles were selected for review. The challenges and solutions were organised according to their association with three stakeholders; the persons living with dementia/informal caregivers, healthcare professionals and the organisation providing the service. Nine of the studies focused on persons living with dementia following a fall or a hip fracture. Most of the studies focused on the perceptions of allied healthcare professionals, with nurses working in rehabilitation settings being underrepresented. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals have to consider the complexity of rehabilitating persons living with dementia irrespective of the rehabilitation speciality. Moreover, more studies are needed that focus on the views of rehabilitation nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review provides further evidence of the healthcare professionals' misconceptions about the rehabilitation potential of persons living with dementia. There is a need to educate healthcare professionals about the societal, attitudinal and environmental barriers faced by persons living with dementia and their caregivers. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution-scoping review.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".