Experiences in coping with dementia and the role of support; a qualitative study of the COGNISANCE project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:People with dementia and informal caregivers utilize a variety of coping strategies to deal with the consequences of a dementia diagnosis. In the beginning they often rely on informal support, but research shows that they could benefit from formal support. The societal and cultural context may also influence how people deal with dementia. Yet, most research that takes place across countries or cultures provides little detail about cross-country differences or similarities. The purpose of this qualitative study is firstly to describe experiences of receiving a diagnosis and experiences, barriers and facilitators towards post-diagnostic support and secondly, and to examine differences and similarities between countriesMethods:A cross-country qualitative study with people with dementia recently diagnosed and their informal caregivers was carried out in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Poland between March 2020 and September 2020. A wide range of recruitment strategies and methods was adopted to aid recruitment and participation during the covid pandemic. Participants could participate in (online) Individual and dyadic interviews as well as online focus groups. To examine experiences after diagnosis and support, methods utilized ‘projective techniques’ whereby participants could project their experiences onto two fictional characters (a person with dementia, and her informal caregiver). A multi-step iterative inductive qualitative content analysis was carried out.Results:23 people with dementia and 53 informal caregivers participated. The following themes were identified; ‘getting a diagnosis, ‘coming to terms with dementia’, ‘support from friends and family’, ‘formal support’, ‘adapting to the role of informal caregiver’ and ‘living well with dementia’. ‘Formal support’ and ‘support from friends and family’ could serve as a barrier, facilitator or both in relation to ‘coming to terms with dementia’ and ‘adapting to the role of informal caregiver’. Coming to terms was a necessity for living well with dementia. ‘Adapting to the role of informal caregiver’ was an ongoing adaption process that was part of ‘coming to terms with dementia’ and extended into ‘living well with dementia’. Similarities of the themes across countries were larger than the differences.Conclusion:Support should enable the process of coming to terms with dementia in a culturally appropriate manner.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".