Experiences of people with dementia and informal caregivers with post‐diagnostic support: Data from the international COGNISANCE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aims to describe people with dementia and informal caregivers' respective experiences of support after diagnosis and compares these experiences. Additionally, we determine how people with dementia and informal caregivers who are satisfied with support differ from those dissatisfied. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, and United Kingdom was carried out to examine people with dementia and informal caregivers experience with support (satisfaction with information, access to care, health literacy, and confidence in ability to live well with dementia). The separate surveys contained closed questions. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Ninety people with dementia and 300 informal caregivers participated, and 69% of people with dementia and 67% of informal caregivers said support after diagnosis helped them deal more efficiently with their concerns. Up to one-third of people with dementia and informal caregivers were dissatisfied with information about management, prognosis, and strategies for living positively. Few people with dementia (22%) and informal caregivers (35%) received a care plan. People with dementia were more often satisfied with information, had more often confidence in their ability to live well with dementia, and were less often satisfied with access to care compared to informal caregivers. Informal caregivers who were satisfied with support were more satisfied with information and access to care compared to informal caregivers not satisfied with support. CONCLUSIONS: Experience of dementia support can be improved and people with dementia and informal caregiver differ in their experiences of support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".