MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406967844 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afae277.099

2672 Exploring stakeholders’ experiences implementing a navigation program for people living with dementia and their carers

2025· article· en· W4406967844 on OpenAlexaffabout
L MacNeil, Shelley Doucet, Anthony Luke, Karla Faig, Pamela Jarrett

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityHorizon Health NetworkUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaNursingAssisted livingGerontologyMedical educationProcess managementDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Navigating dementia care is challenging, but patient navigation (PN) offers valuable support for this population. The ‘Navigating Dementia NB/Naviguer la démence NB’ program piloted a PN program in New Brunswick, Canada, targeting people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. The program aimed to assist participants in navigating health and social care systems, matching their needs with available services. Methods Navigating Dementia NB was co-developed by researchers, patient partners, and clinicians. This pilot program embedded six PNs in primary care clinics/centres across the province between July 2022 and July 2023. Using a mixed methods approach, participant surveys and interviews were used to explore program benefits and recommendations for improvement. Focus groups were used to explore facilitators and barriers to program development and implementation. Results There were 150 participants (PLWD and carer dyads) enrolled in the PN program who provided informed consent. Interviews were conducted with 36 PLWD and their carers. Focus groups were conducted with nine members of the research team and five patient navigators. Program benefits included: emotional support from navigators, provision of relevant information, and facilitating connections to appropriate services. Recommendations for improvement included: the need for PLWD and their carers to have access earlier in the patient journey and the need to reassess provincial policies related to home care support. Facilitators for implementing a PN program included: providing appropriate staff training and leveraging established connections within the health and social systems. Barriers included a compressed timeline and existing systemic issues to service access. Conclusions The findings suggest that embedding PN for PLWD in community based primary care can be done. The program was beneficial for PWLD and their caregivers/care partners. Future plans involve partnering with government to support the implementation and evaluation of a province-wide scale-up of the PN program for this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207