The representation of personal support workers in dementia-specific learning need assessments: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In formal care organizations, personal support workers (PSWs) provide the most daily direct care to people living with dementia. PSWs receive the least comprehensive education and have the fewest opportunities for continuing education compared to nurses and physicians. PSWs need to be provided with opportunities for continuous education programs tailored to their specific learning needs to improve dementia car Conducted in accordance with the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews, this review examined the ways in which PSWs are included within dementia-specific learning needs assessments and how their learning needs are assessed. Eligible studies were published in English between 2000 – 2023. Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched in July 2023. Seventeen studies were included in the review. PSWs represented the entirety of the sample populations in only two studies. Within the remaining fifteen studies, PSWs comprised less than half of the sample population in seven studies. Furthermore, the learning needs of PSWs were not analyzed separately from other professionals in eight studies. Learning needs in dementia care were only explored broadly in five studies. Surveys represented the primary data collection method (n = 13), with nine using them as the sole data collection method This review presents a critical need to explore PSW perspectives on dementia-specific learning needs. Improved understanding of the gaps in PSWs’ knowledge, attitudes, and/or skills related to dementia care is urgently needed to better inform and focus discipline specific and concentrated PSW training in the future.
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 | 0.035 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".