‘I have never bounced back’: resilience and living with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This work responds to the limited research about resilience when living with dementia and develops a conceptual model to inform service development and healthcare practices for this population. METHODS: = 11) generated a combined sample of 87 people living with dementia and their carers, including those affected by rare dementias to explore their lived experiences. An existing framework of resilience developed in other populations served as the starting point to analyse and synthesise the findings, inspiring a new conceptual model of resilience unique to the experience of living with dementia. RESULTS: The synthesis suggests resilience encompasses the daily struggles of living with a dementia; people are not flourishing, thriving or 'bouncing back', but are managing and adapting under pressure and stress. The conceptual model suggests resilience may be achieved through the collective and collaborative role of psychological strengths, practical approaches to adapting to life with dementia, continuing with hobbies, interests and activities, strong relationships with family and friends, peer support and education, participating in community activities and support from healthcare professionals. Most of these themes are not reflected in resilience outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners adopting a strengths-based approach utilising the conceptual model at the point of diagnosis and post-diagnosis support may help individuals achieve resilience through appropriately tailored services and support. This 'resilience practice' could also extend to other degenerative or debilitating chronic conditions a person faces in their life course.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".