42 Talking Lines: stories of diagnosis and support as told by those with lived experience of rarer forms of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background People living with, or caring for someone with, rarer forms of dementia can encounter, among other issues, challenges to wellbeing, social relationships and employment status in the wake of a diagnosis. This study makes use of a creative, arts-based narrative approach to explore individual accounts of these experiences whilst also exploring how, in telling their stories, those affected by rare dementia might invoke, and situate their stories in relation to, mainstream cultural narratives around dementia and illness. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted during Covid via video-conferencing software with participants (N=27), living with, or caring for someone with, a rare dementia. Participants were prompted to narrate their experiences from first symptoms, to diagnosis, to the point at which they first accessed support and up to the present day. A creative line drawing task was also used to aid them in narrating their experiences. Both interviews and line drawings were subjected to narrative analysis. Results Analysis shed light on the struggles encountered by people affected by rare dementia. It tracked challenges to individual identity brought on by their new situation, and the ways in sharing their stories individuals were able to create a new collective sense of identity. The moment of diagnosis was depicted as complicated, in that individuals found comfort in gaining understanding, but were also forced to acknowledge upcoming challenges. Participants situated their own accounts against mainstream cultural narratives around what good support for dementia might look like, often demonstrating the agentic role they took on in pursuing the right care. Conclusion The use of line drawing, alongside narrative interviews, allowed participants to tell complicated, sometimes anachronistic, stories about difficult experiences, whilst also reflecting on, and attaching meaning to, them. The narrative techniques also allowed individuals to track systemic, relational distress in the wake of new and difficult transitions within their lives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".