Exploring perceived helpfulness of health services in men and women with dementia and care partners: A cross-sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to examine the association of sex/gender and other factors with the perceived helpfulness of the diagnostic process and post-diagnostic services by persons with dementia and care partners. Methods: We conducted secondary cross-sectional analysis of surveys from the ‘Cognisance’ project. Sex/gender and other factors (e.g., demographic variables, help seeking behaviours, healthcare professional consulted) of persons with dementia and care partners from four countries were considered. Main outcomes were perceived helpfulness of diagnostic process and post-diagnostic services. We conducted descriptive and multivariate analyses. Results: Compared to men, more women with dementia perceived post-diagnostic services as helpful though not statistically significant. Sex/gender was not associated with perceived helpfulness of diagnostic process and post-diagnostic services among care partners. Satisfaction with and awareness of services were associated with perceived helpfulness among care partners. Discussion: These findings underscore the necessity for sex/gender-based research to enhance dementia care and for tailored interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".