Workplace accommodations for individuals with dementia: experiences from three countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Individuals who develop Young Onset Dementia (YOD) or Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) when they are working, experience difficulties completing work tasks. Most legislative guidelines for workplace accommodations, are geared toward physical and mental health problems, and are not easily transferable to individuals with cognitive impairments. This study aimed to explore workplace accommodations for individuals living with YOD to maintain meaningful work. Method Semi‐structured interviews about their experiences at work were conducted with 28 individuals in Canada, Finland, and Sweden. Result Thematic analysis uncovered an overarching theme of ‘workplace context’ plus cross‐cutting themes of ‘adapted accommodations’, ‘preparing for the future’, and ‘perceptions of support’. Factors relating to job role, organization, workplace culture, and workplace relationships influenced whether support was received. Conclusion People who develop MCI or dementia whilst working require accommodations and support from their employers to maintain meaningful work and prepare for an uncertain future. Currently there is a lack of specific resources and policies on supporting individuals with YOD in the workplace, with individuals frequently making their own adaptations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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".