In the Shadow of COVID-19: The Well-Being and Rights of People Living with Dementia in Finland During the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exceptional circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic increase the risk for vulnerability among people living with dementia. OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the well-being and rights of people living with dementia in Finland during the pandemic and analyses the legal framework covering the restrictions of their rights during that period. METHODS: The empirical research comprises a survey of persons with dementia (n = 31) and their family members (n = 168). The participants completed a total of 13 survey items involving questions about their well-being during the pandemic, restrictions on freedom, access to services, information on pandemic regulations and guidelines as well as possible problems with authorities. The survey included both multiple choice and open-ended questions. RESULTS: According to people with dementia and their family members, by spring 2021, the pandemic had reduced meaningful activities available to people living with dementia in Finland and decreased the number of meetings between them and other people. Many reported a decline in their physical and/or mental well-being or greater difficulty or delays in accessing social and health services. Over a third of respondents found that the right to meet people was restricted among people with dementia, and almost half of the respondents took the view that their freedom of movement was restricted. There were also major shortcomings in terms of information on restrictions. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the importance of bearing in mind the negative effects that restrictions on mobility, meeting other people and meaningful activities can have on the well-being of people living with dementia. This should be considered, for example, when reforming legislation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".