DEMENTIA-RELATED STIGMA, KNOWLEDGE, AND WILLINGNESS TO UNDERGO COGNITIVE SCREENING AMONG OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Screening for dementia such as Alzheimer’s Disease may be most beneficial at the earliest detectable stages of disease presentation, yet there is no definitive recommendation for routine cognitive impairment screening and dementia remains underdiagnosed. Identifying perceptions of cognitive screening, stigmatized beliefs, and misconceptions about dementia could be beneficial for creating interventions that promote dementia knowledge to improve early screening and diagnosis and empower older adults to seek treatment sooner. Thus, we examined the extent to which attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about cognitive screening and dementia predict willingness to undergo screening and subsequent screening behavior. 295 subjects aged ≥ 60 years completed online surveys containing the Perceptions Regarding Investigational Screening for Memory in Primary Care (PRISM-PC) questionnaire to assess attitudes about dementia screening and diagnosis, as well as the Alzheimer’s Disease Knowledge Scale (ADKS). Participants were then invited to complete the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in a university psychology laboratory. 94% of participants reported willingness to undergo screening, but only 69% completed one. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the screening acceptance scale of the PRISM-PC significantly predicted reported willingness to undergo screening but not the pursuit of screening. The other PRISM-PC subscales (perceived benefits of dementia screening, stigma of dementia screening, suffering from dementia screening, and impact of dementia screening on patient’s independence) and the ADKS did not predict willingness or pursuit of screening. While most were willing to undergo screening, significantly fewer completed screening within the study. The factors that predict pursuit of cognitive screening require further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".