Do clinical guidelines support person-centred care for women affected by dementia: A content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia disproportionately affects women including persons living with dementia and caregivers. Person-centered care, rather than disease-focused, is recommended to improve care for affected persons including caregivers. General practitioners play a central role in dementia care but find it challenging due to inadequate training. The study aimed to assess if and how dementia guidelines provide clinicians with guidance on person-centred care for women affected by dementia. METHODS: We searched for publicly available English-language guidelines on the overall management of dementia in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Guidelines International Network repository. We employed deductive and summative content analysis, and categorized person-centered care guideline content based on established frameworks, and conveyed our results using summary statistics, text, and tables. RESULTS: We reviewed 15 guidelines published from 2006 to 2020 in eight countries. Few (4, 23%) involved persons living with dementia or caregivers in guideline development. Regarding general person-centred care, guidelines mostly addressed the domains of exchange information (93%), share decisions (93%), enable self-management (93%) and address emotions (87%), while few offered content on manage uncertainty (33%) or foster a healing relationship (13%). Regarding dementia-specific person-centred care, most guidelines addressed intersectionality (tailoring care for diverse characteristics) (80%), but few included content on the domains of quality of life (67%), dignity (53%) or sex/gender issues (20%). Even when mentioned, the guidance was typically brief. We identified 32 general and 18 dementia-specific strategies to achieve person-centered care by compiling information from these guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified inconsistent and insufficient guideline content on person-centred care for women with dementia. Compiled strategies for achieving person-centred care could be used by developers to enhance existing and future dementia guidelines; and inform the development of policies or programs, education, tools for clinicians, and quality improvement measures for evaluating dementia care. Future research is crucial for promoting person-centred dementia care for women living with dementia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".