Living with cognitive impairment: The impact of being diagnosed with dementia. A qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Although knowledge about the experience of being diagnosed with dementia is limited, with the expected rise in dementia’s prevalence in the coming decades, such knowledge is pivotal for the people diagnosed, their families, and healthcare planners. Thus, the aim of our study was to explore the experience of living with cognitive impairment and dementia and the impact of being diagnosed with dementia. Method A qualitative design based on a phenomenological hermeneutic approach was applied. Participants were recruited based on age-adjusted values below threshold values on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (i.e. 70–79 years, < 22; 80–89 years, < 21; 90 + years, < 20), and the sample ultimately included 15 participants: six with and nine without a documented dementia diagnosis. Qualitative content analysis was performed on the transcribed interviews in four steps to identify codes, categories, and the overall theme. Results Three major categories emerged from the interviews: (1) experiences with changes, (2) experiences with being diagnosed with dementia, and (3) existential experience. All participants with and most participants without a dementia diagnosis experienced changes in cognition. Conclusion Our findings imply that being diagnosed with dementia is a relief because it explains observed cognitive and functional decreases and reduces confusion, shame and stigma. However, it also raises concerns about an unknown future. Most participants not diagnosed with dementia reported having little or no difficulty with everyday living and leading a fulfilling life. Those findings emphasise the significance of timely versus early diagnosis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".