KINLESS OLDER ADULTS WITH DEMENTIA: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE ADULT CHANGES IN THOUGHT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To examine the circumstances and needs of older adults who were “kinless,” defined as having no living spouse or children, when they developed dementia. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of information from the Adult Changes in Thought study. Among 848 participants diagnosed with dementia between 1994 and 2016, we identified 64 who had no living spouse or child at dementia onset. We then conducted a qualitative analysis of administrative documents pertaining to these participants: handwritten comments recorded after each study visit, and medical history documents containing clinical chart notes from participants’ medical records. Results In this community-dwelling cohort of older adults diagnosed with dementia, 8.4% were kinless at dementia onset. Participants in this sample had an average age of 87 years old, half lived alone, and one third lived with unrelated persons. Through inductive content analysis, we identified 4 themes that describe their circumstances and needs: (1) life trajectories, (2) caregiving resources, (3) care needs and gaps, and (4) turning points in caregiving arrangements. Discussion Our qualitative analysis reveals that the life trajectories that led members of the analytic cohort to be kinless at dementia onset were quite varied. This research highlights the importance of nonfamily caregivers and participants’ own roles as caregivers. Our findings suggest that clinicians and health systems may need to work with other parties to directly provide dementia caregiving support rather than rely on family, and address factors such as neighborhood affordability that particularly affect older adults who have limited family support.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".