Virtual primary care for people living with dementia in Canada: cross-sectional surveys of patients, care partners, and family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) for dementia in primary care settings is an important aspect of healthcare delivery in Canada. However, the evidence informing optimal and sustainable provision of VC for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners is scarce. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the frequency of VC use, (2) identify characteristics of PLWD, care partners, and family physicians (FPs) that are associated with the use of VC, and (3) explore FPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to provide VC for PLWD and their care partners. METHODS: The Alzheimer Society of Canada and College of Family Physicians of Canada conducted three nationwide cross-sectional surveys between October 2020 and April 2021: (1) One with PLWD, (2) one with care partners of PLWD, and (3) one with FPs. Virtual care was defined as two-way synchronous communication by telephone and/or a web camera. The prevalence of VC use among FPs, PLWD, and care partners was described. Logistic regression models were used to determine characteristics of participants (sociodemographic, urbanicity, frequency and availability of support for connecting with FPs, and FPs' practice characteristics) associated with any VC use (phone and/or video). Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended questions explored FPs' perceptions. RESULTS: 131 PLWD, 341 care partners, and 125 FPs participated. 61.2% of PLWD, 59.5% of care partners, and 77.4% of FPs reported using VC. The models for PLWD (included age and ethnicity) and care partners (included gender/sex, urbanicity, and receiving support from a family member/friend to connect with FP) were inconclusive. FPs with > 20 years in practice were less likely to provide VC (OR = 0.23, 95%CI: 0.08-0.62, p < 0.01). FPs perceived that preferences regarding virtual vs. in-person care, office/family support, technology and family presence, and remuneration for FPs influenced VC use. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual primary dementia care uptake in Canada is substantial and mainly performed via telephone. According to FPs, physician-patient-caregiver partnerships and infrastructure for VC play key roles in using VC. Virtual care could facilitate access to primary care and minimize potential disruptions to in-person care for PLWD. Outcomes of virtual primary care for dementia need further investigation.
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".