Safer dementia care spaces: Perspectives from LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of caregivers and people living with dementia and other related forms of cognitive impairment is increasing worldwide. Compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals, studies suggest that lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or other sexual and/or gender minority people (LGBTQ+) are at a higher risk for known risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia, stemming from minority stress experiences. Limited research has explored the distinct obstacles that LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers encounter, especially within dementia care. The purpose of this study was to deepen our understanding regarding LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers’ experiences with dementia care spaces, and to identify the strategies that they perceive as effective in creating safer and more inclusive spaces. Fourteen LGBTQ+ participants aged 27–78 ( M = 58.07), consisting of two individuals with cognitive impairment and 12 caregivers, were interviewed about the care needs of LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers, and their experiences with dementia care spaces. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three overarching themes from the data, indicating that LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers feel left “on the margins” of dementia care and express a desire for their identities to be celebrated and recognized. Additionally, they proposed recommendations for policy change to foster safer and more inclusive spaces for dementia care. The findings call attention to the negative experiences of LGBTQ+ people with cognitive impairment and caregivers with dementia care, but also highlight the ways in which care practices can be transformed to effectively address their care needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".