Quality of Life of People Living with Dementia and Care Partners in 3 Countries: Canada, The Netherlands and Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The global prevalence of dementia is on a concerning rise, currently affecting 55 million people. It is projected to triple in the next 30 years, leading to a profound impact on the quality of life (QoL) for both people living with dementia (PLWDs) and care partners (CPs). The compounded challenges, encompassing mental, physical, and financial aspects, significantly affect the QoL of PLWDs and CPs, creating an urgent need for comprehensive understanding and tailored interventions. Beyond medical considerations, ethical principles highlight respecting the autonomy and dignity of PLWDs, requiring a delicate balance in meeting their care needs while minimizing CPs' burden. Long‐term care planning is imperative at both individual and societal levels, necessitating sustainable healthcare policies and supportive environments. Existing healthcare and social care responses have limitations, underlining the need for rigorous scientific inquiry to enhance understanding, address unique needs, and improve QoL. The purpose of this research is to explore the multifaceted aspects of improving QoL for PLWDs and CPs in Canada, the Netherlands, and Poland. It seeks to identify predictors, understand experiences, and propose recommendations to improve QoL in the three countries. To address these objectives, the research questions are: What are the predictors of QoL among PLWDs and CPs in Canada, the Netherlands, and Poland? How do PLWDs and CPs experience dementia in these diverse regions? What recommendations can be identified to enhance the QoL of PLWDs and CPs? Employing a results‐based convergent synthesis design approach, this research involves conducting a cross‐sectional survey utilizing random forest models to determine predictors of QoL. Semi‐structured interviews and focus groups with PLWDs and CPs explore their experiences with living with dementia. Deliberative dialogues with diverse stakeholders, including PLWDs, CPs, primary care providers, and policymakers, are facilitated to generate recommendations. To contribute actionable knowledge, evidence‐based recommendations, and support frameworks to enhance the QoL of PLWDs and CPs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".