Understanding practices and support needs of family caregivers of people with dementia in Africa: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiving for people with dementia is a growing challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where 60 per cent of people with dementia globally reside. Yet the experiences and needs of caregivers supporting this population in African regions have not received adequate policy and practice attention. As a first step toward addressing this issue, we aimed to describe key challenges and solutions, and attend to knowledge gaps related to the needs and experiences of caregivers of persons with dementia across Africa. Informed by Arskey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework, we conducted a scoping review of empirical literatures, without year restriction. We included studies focusing on family caregivers supporting people with dementia in Africa. We reviewed five databases and screened titles and abstracts using Rayyan before extracting full texts. Our initial search yielded 3,982 articles, of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the selected dementia caregiving studies were conducted in South Africa, did not attend to the diverse ethnic beliefs and practices of the region in question and drew their samples from hospitals. While many studies explored caregiver support types, only a few focused on local support systems, like traditional and spiritual healing centres. Some studies addressed stigma and positive aspects of caregiving, offering insights for policy and practice. Future research should broaden regional and ethnic representation, investigate various support networks, such as community elders and healing centres, and examine the impact of local beliefs on stigma and caregiving positivity.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".