Enablers and barriers to delivering person centred dementia care: Perceptions and experiences of diagnostic and therapeutic radiography practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence about the experiences of radiographers providing care to people living with dementia (PLWD). This study explored the perceptions and experiences of radiography practitioners when delivering person-centred dementia care (PCDC) in both diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy departments. METHODS: A two-phase qualitative multi-method study was conducted. For phase 1, fifteen diagnostic and two therapeutic radiography practitioners from across the UK participated with online focus group discussions. For phase 2, four key stakeholders involved with the development of the UK Society of College of Radiographers Caring for People with Dementia practice guidelines for diagnostic and therapeutic radiography practitioners took part with individual semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Participants from both phases identified enablers and barriers to providing person-centred care to individuals living with dementia. Three themes were identified that were linked to (1) Time and workload pressures in delivering person-centred dementia care, (2) Workplace practice and norms, and (3) Areas for improvement in delivering person-centred dementia care. DISCUSSION: Delivering PCDC can be challenging in practice. This is often due to workplace cultures where time and resources linked to productivity and waiting lists are the norms and impact on the delivery of PCDC. Leaders and managers of departments were thought to not always value a culture of PCDC but were seen as key influencers in supporting change and impact in delivering PCDC. Radiography practitioners were not always aware that a patient had dementia prior to their attendance in the department making it difficult to prepare ahead of appointments. Care partners were identified as having the potential to help alleviate some challenges radiographers faced. Findings also suggest a need for more education and training linked to dementia awareness. Further research is warranted in this area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".